Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory of clouds and global warming looks to be confirmed

Note: Between flaccid climate sensitivity, ENSO driving “the pause”, and now this, it looks like the upcoming IPCC AR5 report will be obsolete the day it is released.

From a Technical University of Denmark press release comes what looks to be a significant confirmation of Svensmark’s theory of temperature modulation on Earth by cosmic ray interactions. The process is that when there are more cosmic rays, they help create more microscopic cloud nuclei, which in turn form more clouds, which reflect more solar radiation back into space, making Earth cooler than what it normally might be. Conversely, less cosmic rays mean less cloud cover and a warmer planet as indicated here. The sun’s magnetic field is said to deflect cosmic rays when its solar magnetic dynamo is more active, and right around the last solar max, we were at an 8000 year high, suggesting more deflected cosmic rays, and warmer temperatures. Now the sun has gone into a record slump, and there are predictions of cooler temperatures ahead This new and important paper is published in Physics Letters A. – Anthony

Researchers in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) are hard on the trail of a previously unknown molecular process that helps commonplace clouds to form. Tests in a large and highly instrumented reaction chamber in Lyngby, called SKY2, demonstrate that an existing chemical theory is misleading.

Back in 1996 Danish physicists suggested that cosmic rays, energetic particles from space, are important in the formation of clouds. Since then, experiments in Copenhagen and elsewhere have demonstrated that cosmic rays actually help small clusters of molecules to form. But the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis seemed to run into a problem when numerical simulations of the prevailing chemical theory pointed to a failure of growth.

Fortunately the chemical theory could also be tested experimentally, as was done with SKY2, the chamber of which holds 8 cubic metres of air and traces of other gases. One series of experiments confirmed the unfavourable prediction that the new clusters would fail to grow sufficiently to be influential for clouds. But another series of experiments, using ionizing rays, gave a very different result, as can be seen in the accompanying figure.

The reactions going on in the air over our heads mostly involve commonplace molecules. During daylight hours, ultraviolet rays from the Sun encourage sulphur dioxide to react with ozone and water vapour to make sulphuric acid. The clusters of interest for cloud formation consist mainly of sulphuric acid and water molecules clumped together in very large numbers and they grow with the aid of other molecules.

Simulating what could happen in the atmosphere, the DTU’s SKY2 experiment shows molecular clusters (red dots) failing to grow enough to provide significant numbers of “cloud condensation nuclei” (CCN) of more than 50 nanometres in diameter. This is what existing theories predict. But when the air in the chamber is exposed to ionizing rays that simulate the effect of cosmic rays, the clusters (blue dots) grow much more vigorously to the sizes suitable for helping water droplets to form and make clouds. (A nanometre is a millionth of a millimetre.)

Atmospheric chemists have assumed that when the clusters have gathered up the day’s yield, they stop growing, and only a small fraction can become large enough to be meteorologically relevant. Yet in the SKY2 experiment, with natural cosmic rays and gamma-rays keeping the air in the chamber ionized, no such interruption occurs. This result suggests that another chemical process seems to be supplying the extra molecules needed to keep the clusters growing.

“The result boosts our theory that cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy are directly involved in the Earth’s weather and climate,” says Henrik Svensmark, lead author of the new report. “In experiments over many years, we have shown that ionizing rays help to form small molecular clusters. Critics have argued that the clusters cannot grow large enough to affect cloud formation significantly. But our current research, of which the reported SKY2 experiment forms just one part, contradicts their conventional view. Now we want to close in on the details of the unexpected chemistry occurring in the air, at the end of the long journey that brought the cosmic rays here from exploded stars.”

In experiments where ultraviolet light produces aerosols from trace amounts of ozone, sulfur dioxide,and water vapor, the relative increase in aerosols produced by ionization by gamma sources is constant from nucleation to diameters larger than 50 nm, appropriate for cloud condensation nuclei. This resultcontradicts both ion-free control experiments and also theoretical models that predict a decline in the response at larger particle sizes. This unpredicted experimental finding points to a process not included in current theoretical models, possibly an ion-induced formation of sulfuric acid in small clusters.

Absolutely, it was always going to be magnetic/gravitational modulation of cosmic rays together with solar activity.
Piers Corbyn isn’t looking so silly now is he?
Of course the warmists are going to attempt to blame the pause on this effect which may be difficult if the cloud cover records don’t match the temperature plateau.

REPLY: Piers looks silly because he makes grandiose forecast skill claims that are so vaguely written they can compete with Jeane Dixon style astrological forecast language, not because he believe is cosmic ray modulation – Anthony

The process is that when there are more cosmic rays, they help create more microscopic cloud nuclei, which in turn form more clouds, which reflect more solar radiation back into space, making Earth cooler than what it normally might be.

Does Svensmark suggest that the level of cosmic radiation is in flux – or that fluctuations in the sun’s energies cause variations in the earth’s magnetic shield?

So let me get this straight: reduced solar radiation, means more cosmic radiation, which means more clouds? If so, then this would be a double whammy negative feedback system? I apologize for the non-scientific terminology used.

The process is that when there are more cosmic rays, they help create more microscopic cloud nuclei, which in turn form more clouds, which reflect more solar radiation back into space, making Earth cooler than what it normally might be.

Does Svensmark suggest that the level of cosmic radiation is in flux – or that fluctuations in the sun’s energies cause variations in the earth’s magnetic shield?

I could have read further before I posted. The sun’s role is explained below..

JimS says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:38 am
“So let me get this straight: reduced solar radiation, means more cosmic radiation, which means more clouds? If so, then this would be a double whammy negative feedback system? I apologize for the non-scientific terminology used.”

Total Insolation does not change significantly. What changes significantly is only the magnetic field. So; “single whammy” – by modulating the albedo of Earth.

I have always believed that this was one of the many secondary effects associated with changing solar conditions.

That is a quiet sun allows more cosmic rays to enter earth’s atmosphere which in turn will promote more clouds colder temperatures.

The location of the Magnetic Pole, also has a bearing as to where the cosmic ray penetration will be greatest over the earth. The lower the latitude of the magnetic poles ,the lower will be the latitude of maximum cosmic ray penetration,. The lower the latitude of comic ray penetration the more moisture will be present, for the cosmic rays to work with.

Elevation of the Svensmark Hypothesis to be the Svensmark Theory would open up entire new fields of climate physics. That elevation requires that the experimental observation can be understood theoretically.

So, Henrik definitely would deserve a Nobel Prize for physics if he can evince the required theoretical understanding of his experimental observation.

I think we should be prepared to start a pro-Nobel campaign for Henrik when he completes his study.

An interesting speculation is that the cloud albedo effect is non uniform and say more effective over the Pacific and drives the ENSO cycles and hey presto… a powerfull compound mechanism. But that’s just me here in Oz getting excited that we are about to boot out a loony warmist government and elect one with a leader who once expressed the opinion ( as we are often reminded) that global warming alarmism was “just crap”.

Sorry but this was all settled already. Time to move on from these scientific and experimental distractions and get on with the work of total global domination, err, I mean tackling man-made climate change.

Followed this story a long time ago, and when looking back to recall how these Scientists around Svensmark were treated by the community it must be a perfect day for them now. AGW storytelling will drag on for a whie and then silently disappear.

Who would want a Nobel prize…..Gore and Obama have one, they have been tainted and ruined. Remember the risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting. I heard that again today, is it a broken record? The world is in chaos, just wait until the temp. drops the next 30 years. It’s going to get really ugly.

Now that the mechanism has been demonstrated it should be straightforward to show it taking place in the atmosphere. Because the reaction rate is so high it will also be relatively easy to catch the molecular transformation sequence in snapshots.

Did CERN already know this but not report it, instead asking for 5 more years before drawing conclusions?

Hang in Svensmark, recognition is coming for this remarkable advancement in the understanding of cloud formation.

The paper has this to say “It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second signiﬁcant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental ﬁndings”. They injected sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the chamber and managed to convert some of that [using UV-lamps] to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and found that adding ions to the mix made that process more efficient. This does not seem to be much of a confirmation of a correlation that has not held up over time in the first place.

@Svensmark
You used electropolished stainless steel in the container. Did you do this to eliminate metal cluster contribution? Where is the control showing the container doesn’t contribute material to aerosol formation? How did you clean the chamber prior to the experiments so that adsorbed chemicals weren’t contributing? Can there be a contribution from your PTFE membrane?

Anthony, I am so glad to hear you say Magnetic Field is a whole different animal because it is, and do not forget the geo magnetic field also has to be taken into consideration. This can compound solar magnetic changes.

The ap index is the index we should be watching the most in my opinion going foward.

DesertYote: They are directly comparing their results to model calculations. This is from the caption for Figure 3:

“Blue circles are the experimental results averaged over ﬁve runs. The red curve is a typical result of a numerical simulation of the experimental situation using a standard numerical aerosol model. Notice that the expected response from the modeling decreases strongly with particle diameter in contrast with the experimental results. A much better agreement is seen with a numerical simulation in the black curve, where the concentration of sulfuric acid is
held constant.”

oldseadog says:There is no doubt that AR5 will be obsolete when it is published; the problem will be getting MSM and the politicians to say so.

This simply isn’t true, and this paper doens’t make it true. There still remains a lot to be proven before this hypothesis explains (any of) modern climate change, including whether the radiative impact of clouds can account for observed climate variations (many, like Andrew Dessler, think they do not), whether the the cloud feedback is net positive or net negative, and whether there is an underlying trend in cosmic rays of sufficient magnitude to explain post-1975 warming.

And, even *if* Svensmark et al is true, CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, whose effects are seen throughout paleoclimate and whose radiative properties are probably the *best* known part of climate science (both theoretically and observationally).

Interesting but still doesn’t explain the circulation changes between zonal and meridional jets with varying degrees of atmospheric ‘blocking’.
——————————————

The hypothesis could explain such changes, due to variation in increased cloud cover. Also helps explain why models work so poorly for the Cretaceous (even worse than for now), because of ocean-derived CCN numbers, not necessarily the solar magnetic flux aspect of the study.

The field of solar /climate relationships is where the field of climatalogy is heading ,and more and more connections are starting to come to light as studies in this field keep making advances.

The case for a more meridional atmospheric circulation /solar connection being pretty conclusive ,through observation and experimentation.

The ap index /geological connection is another area where advances are being made.

If one were to plot all major volcanic eruptions /major earthquakes going back to 1600ad one will find a significant correlation between the times around sunspot minimums and an increase in this kind of activity. Correlations north of 80%, to much for coincidence in my opinion.

JimS says:
“So let me get this straight: reduced solar radiation, means more cosmic radiation, which means more clouds? If so, then this would be a double whammy negative feedback system? I apologize for the non-scientific terminology used.”

Yeah, you don’t sound too bright with ‘double whammy’, so instead of apologising, how about not using silly language in the first place?

It would not be a double negative feedback system anyway. There is NO feedback of either polarity happening here. The amount of cloud on Earth affects neither the solar output , nor the cosmic ray flux.

However, the two effects would be acting in the same sense, with less solar activity also increasing the amount of cloud cover.

Argh. What rubbish is this again.http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Cause and effect, remember? Same as that warming causes more CO2. (prof Carter)
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:49 amIf one were to plot all major volcanic eruptions /major earthquakes going back to 1600 ad one will find a significant correlation between the times around sunspot minimums and an increase in this kind of activity
So you suggest that no solar activity whatsoever generates major earthquakes.

What I have come across is just about all climate scientist that are not involved in the man made global warming agenda are pretty much of the opinion that solar rules the climate both through primary and secondary effects.

Maunder Minimum and the more recent Dalton Minimum support this train of thought quite well.

And, even *if* Svensmark et al is true, CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, whose effects are seen throughout paleoclimate and whose radiative properties are probably the *best* known part of climate science (both theoretically and observationally).
———————————–

CO2 concentration is seen throughout paleoclimate to be negligible & primarily an effect rather than a cause of climate change. The radiative properties of water vapor are at least as well known, without the complication of the little understood affect of various carbon sinks on the effect of CO2 on climate.

It is indeed a greenhouse gas, but the effect of adding more of it beyond a very low level is trivial, with possible exception of when it gets extremely high in the absence of much O2, as in the Pre-Cambrian.

CACA is utter, total & complete garbage (& its models GIGO), & was known as such prima facie by real scientists as soon as the scam got started, but was perpetrated by fraudsters with knowledge & malice aforethought. Earth is homeostatic, as the paleoclimate record so abundantly demonstrates.

So let me get this straight: reduced solar radiation, means more cosmic radiation, which means more clouds? If so, then this would be a double whammy negative feedback system? I apologize for the non-scientific terminology used.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually the connection is less Solar Wind and weaker solar magnetic field.
NASA: Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low

Sept. 23, 2008: In a briefing today at NASA headquarters, solar physicists announced that the solar wind is losing power.

“The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s,” says Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. “This is the weakest it’s been since we began monitoring solar wind almost 50 years ago.”

…Flagging solar wind has repercussions across the entire solar system—beginning with the heliosphere.

The heliosphere is a bubble of magnetism springing from the sun and inflated to colossal proportions by the solar wind. Every planet from Mercury to Pluto and beyond is inside it. The heliosphere is our solar system’s first line of defense against galactic cosmic rays. High-energy particles from black holes and supernovas try to enter the solar system, but most are deflected by the heliosphere’s magnetic fields.

“The solar wind isn’t inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to,” says McComas. “That means less shielding against cosmic rays.”

In addition to weakened solar wind, “Ulysses also finds that the sun’s underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s,” says Posner. “This reduces natural shielding even more.”

Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%…..

And, even *if* Svensmark et al is true, CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, whose effects are seen throughout paleoclimate and whose radiative properties are probably the *best* known part of climate science (both theoretically and observationally).

Sedron L, I am writing this with complete sincerity. If I could tell you this privately then I would, but I can’t so I write it here.

I recognise your pain: I really do. And you have my sympathy.

Yes, CO2 is a GHG and its logarithmically declining effect with increasing concentration is known and understood. Nobody is attacking that article of your faith.

But nature (e.g. the ‘pause’) and science (e.g. greater understanding of ENSO) is refuting your belief in discernible AGW. This is painful for you because loss of a faith always is painful. I understand that.

The work of Svensmark may be another refutation of your belief, and that hurts. I understand that, too. So you are flailing about here in attempt to push away what is hurting you. Many would do the same.

Your faith is not what makes you important: you are what makes your faith important. Know there are people who care about you. And they will still care when you recognise your faith was misplaced.

So, try to relax. Truth will out whatever you choose to believe. And replace your mistaken belief in AGW with a faith which will give you comfort and aid your happiness.

Salvatore Del Prete says:What I have come across is just about all climate scientist that are not involved in the man made global warming agenda are pretty much of the opinion that solar rules the climate both through primary and secondary effects.

I remember from my A’ Level Physics (or was it O’ level?) The Wilson Cloud Chamber where supersaturated water vapour was condensed into liquid water trails by alpha and beta radiation particles. Presumably in the atmosphere cosmic rays (which are gamma rays and sometimes X-Rays which are both ultra short wave electromagnetic radiation), knock electrons of atoms in the atmosphere which become beta radiation and have the same effect? I sat my A levels 40 years ago so may be a bit rusty, but I believe this is demonstrable science, not the product of computer modelling which shares no basis with reality!

Look out Anthony, Leif is running his mouth about something other than TSI.

REPLY: It is fine if he wants to question and discuss the science, that’s what this blog is all about. From my perspective though, this is an important roadblock that has been removed in the atmospheric chemistry process. Previously is was shown that cosmic rays produced nuclei clumps, but most were too small to be effective. Now with this experiment showing that the kinds of nuclei cosmic rays produce can grow through an accretion process to reach the 50nm or greater size needed, it opens the pathway forward to documenting the entire cosmic ray to cloud formation process in Earth’s atmosphere. – Anthony

This identification of cosmic rays as a source of condensation nuclei (CN) resolves another conundrum in early climate studies. Originally, it was assumed that most CN were salt or clay particles. The problem was there appeared to be insufficient CN from these sources to account for the amount of cloud.

Research on this came from cloud seeding in the 1970s and 1980s – it was an early form of geo-engineering. The main CN was silver iodide added to a cloud to create rain or to preclude the development of hail storms. Generally it was abandoned because you didn’t know the baseline. How much would it have rained if you didn’t seed? There were also problems of lawsuits over claims of creating flash flooding or “stealing” moisture upwind to cause droughts downwind.

“Chris4692 says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:05 am
seem promising, but before getting excited, let’s see the discussion pro and con, back and forth. We’ve only seen one side. See if it withstands criticism and further experimentation.”

############

The problem is this.

The hypothesis is More GCR = more clouds = cooling earth.

Svensmark is trying to explain the mechanism more GCR = More clouds.

The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if he is able to show it in a lab he has the problem of explaining why it doesnt actually happen outside the lab.

An interesting speculation is that the cloud albedo effect is non uniform and say more effective over the Pacific and drives the ENSO cycles and hey presto… a powerfull compound mechanism…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think Vukcevic and the Earth’s magnetic field. Think Ozone and the waning and waxing of ozone holes.

UW prof says cyclic ozone hole proves cosmic ray theory
A University of Waterloo scientist says that an observed cyclic hole in the ozone layer provides proof of a new ozone depletion theory involving cosmic rays, a theory outlined in his new study, just published in Physical Review Letters.

Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy and an ozone depletion expert, said it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth’s ozone layer is depleted by chlorine atoms produced by the sun’s ultraviolet light-induced destruction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere.

But mounting evidence supports a new theory that says cosmic rays, rather than the sun’s UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. Cosmic rays are energy particles originating in space….

In his study, Lu analyzes reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles. The data unambiguously show the time correlations between cosmic ray intensity and global ozone depletion, as well as between cosmic ray intensity and the ozone hole over the South Pole….

What evidence do we have that the experiments were not rigged to produce the result they wanted to believe?

Science is about replication. If their experiment were – as you suggest – fr@udulent then that would be discovered as soon as others attempted to replicate the experiment. The experimenters would then lose their reputations, their jobs and their pensions.

So, what evidence do we have that you have as many as two brain cells to rub together?

Wait. How did the climate science overlords let this paper get published??

You probably haven’t noticed, but since Climate-gate, since the academic community learned how a few climate scientists were running interference to stop papers they didn’t like from getting published, there has indeed been more “skeptical” papers getting published.

Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:27 amSo, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen.
A sober assessment of the available evidence http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf [see also http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf ] concludes “In this paper we have examined the evidence of a CR-cloud relationship from direct and indirect observations of cloud recorded from satellite- and ground-based measurement techniques. Overall, the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link”

…. The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physicist Nive Shaviv doesn’t agree with you on that.

The last point raised by Sloan and Wolfendale is the fact that no effect is observed during Forbush decreases. These are several-day long events during which the CRF reaching Earth can decrease by as much as 10%-20%. Sloan and Wolfendale expect to see a decrease in the cloud cover during the events, but just like with the latitudinal effect, they expect to see an effect which is much larger than should actually be present.

Sloan and Wolfendale plot a graph for the cloud cover reduction vs. the cosmic ray reduction during Forbush events, based on the Oulu neutron monitor data. For the largest event, the Oulu neutron count rate decreased by about 15%. If the cloud reduction during the Forbush decreases should be similar to that over the solar cycle, a 7% reduction in the cloud cover is expected.

At face value this might seem like a real inconsistency, but at closer scrutiny it becomes clear where the discrepancy arises from. Fig. 3 plots the CRF reduction following the biggest Forbush event between 1982 and 2002, which took place in 1991. Indeed, one can see that the immediate reduction in the Oulu count is of order 15%, however, the data points for the cloud cover, plotted by Sloan and Wolfendale are either monthly average or weekly averages. Over the week following the 1991 even, the average CRF reduction in Oulu was actually roughly 5%, not 15%. This implies that the expected LCC anomaly is three times smaller, and therefore drowns under noise. The situation is much worse for the monthly data.

To see effects, one therefore needs to use daily averages of the cloud cover. This was done, for example, by Harrison and Stephenson (2006) who found that there is an apparent Forbush decrease in the cloud cover over Britain.

Summary

Sloan and Wolfendale raised three critiques which supposedly discredit the CRF/climate link. A careful check, however, reveals that the arguments are inconsistent with the real expectations from the link. Two arguments are based on the expectation for effects which are much larger than should actually be present. In the third argument, they expect to see no phase lag, where one should actually be present. When carefully considering the link, Sloan and Wolfendale did not raise any argument which bares any implications to the validity or invalidity of the link….

The comments under the analysis are still open if you want to debate the matter with Shaviv.

The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if he is able to show it in a lab he has the problem of explaining why it doesnt actually happen outside the lab.
———————————

The effect was found in a 2009 study, not found in 2010 & found again in 2011.

Naturally, you chose to credit the suspect outlier.

In any case, there’s a big difference between a brief event & long-term variation in magnetic flux modulation of cosmic rays, the supply of which isn’t steady, as recognized by the science of cosmoclimatology.

“It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second signiﬁcant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental ﬁndings”.

So where are all the skeptics who should be shouting loudly that “it is proposed”… “as a possible explanation”? If this was an AGW paper that is exactly what you would all say.
So what do we have? Another step along the path, a good one perhaps, but not the holy grail as some posters seem to want to bestow upon it.

And Salvatore, if you have a personal issue with Dr S take it up somewhere else. I for one am tired of having to read through all your opinionated BS that has little to do with the subject at hand with which you have polluted the last couple of solar threads. State your position, provide us with explanations and links so we can learn something and let the personal stuff go.

Tom in Florida says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:46 amnot the holy grail as some posters seem to want to bestow upon it
When people are grasping for straws, it seems that even the smallest blade can make a difference…

Svensmark et al:It is less clear if the variations in ionization caused by solar activity can be seen in changes in the CCN production in the real atmosphere. In other words if a 10% change in the ionization could result in an ≈ 1–2% change in CCN concentration, which is of the order expected to have a observable impact on clouds [15]. Since nucleation and growth in the atmosphere vary with temperature, pressure, and concentration of gases, the impact of the observed effect will depend on the specific location in the atmosphere.

There Svensmark has a problem in converting the excellent hypothesis in an unquestionable theory. If CERN experiment has not produced 100% result, with current stagnation and even more so with possible cooling, impact of his research will loose some of the impetus.
We also know that sun maintained its magnetic cycle but lost sunspots during the Maunder minimum when temperatures fell.
Sunspots are the source of the TSI change but not to a degree to explain climate variability.
Sunspots also are the source of les frequent but more violent solar magnetic events resulting in the mass ejection (CMEs) and different type of far more energetic interaction with the Earth’s environment to the one that the Svensmark’s hypothesis is about.

This paper is real science, based upon repeatable experiment, with a follow up program of further research to test hypotheses. This is the antithesis of consensus climate “science”, based upon GIGO models.

Who would want a Nobel prize…..Gore and Obama have one…
_________________________________________________________
They don’t have a real one, they have a “Peace Prize” which is a political prize not a scientific prize. As far as I know, the science ones do matter.

DirkH says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:47 am
JimS says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:38 am
“So let me get this straight: reduced solar radiation, means more cosmic radiation, which means more clouds? If so, then this would be a double whammy negative feedback system? I apologize for the non-scientific terminology used.”

Total Insolation does not change significantly. What changes significantly is only the magnetic field. So; “single whammy” – by modulating the albedo of Earth.
+++++++
Hi Dirk: Semantics, but metaphorically, it’s OK to call it a double whammy. I’m not saying anything new here. The theory suggests a negative feedback to a waning sun. Or conversely a positive feedback to a more active sun. When the sun is more active, more of the sun’s energy is allowed to pass through the atmosphere and heat the earth. When the sun is less active, less of it’s energy makes it down through the atmosphere to heat the earth. So two whams in that sense.

The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if he is able to show it in a lab he has the problem of explaining why it doesnt actually happen outside the lab.”

…So where are all the skeptics who should be shouting loudly that “it is proposed”… “as a possible explanation”? If this was an AGW paper that is exactly what you would all say.
So what do we have? Another step along the path, a good one perhaps, but not the holy grail as some posters seem to want to bestow upon it…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It made it through Peer Review without being censored. It adds another link to our knowledge of how the climate actually may work. It shoots a few more holes in the idiotic CO2 is the ultimate Control Knob propaganda from the IPCC. AND it is just in time to trip up the next IPCC report. THAT is plenty of reason for celebrating

Many Skeptics, like me take the position of I Don’t Know. We are still in the phase of trying to figure out what unknowns we don’t know. Others have tried to take what we do know and cobble together a possible explanation.

At this stage of climate science anyone who takes the stance of ‘I Know’ is full of it.

This isn’t Nobel prize territory yet. This experiment is at the “that’s odd” stage. They found an unexpected situation which behaves differently than current understanding. Someone has to figure out what is causing this behavior. Maybe the explanation of that will be significant, or maybe it will be an “of course a hot air balloon rises” explanation.

Gail Combs says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:02 pmIt made it through Peer Review without being censored.
Because it is not really about the climate, but about how to convert sulfur dioxide and water vapor to sulfuric acid in their reaction chamber.

” But the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis seemed to run into a problem when numerical simulations of the prevailing chemical theory pointed to a failure of growth.Fortunately the chemical theory could also be tested experimentally,”

I’ll see your simulation.and raise you an experiment! It’s time for the IPCC to fold but I’m pretty sure they try to bluff. Their tell is so obvious that I’m going all in.

It made it through Peer Review without being censored.
Because it is not really about the climate, but about how to convert sulfur dioxide and water vapor to sulfuric acid in their reaction chamber.

Leif, I think you may be wrong. Do you remember all of the pre-press release admonitions about the CERN confirmatory paper a couple of years ago. They were clearly concerned the results would add ammunition to the skeptics.

I advocate caution, as Mosher points out, lab and real world results are not necessarily the same.
What this DOES do – is start to concentrate folks minds back on to the solar/extraterrestrial geomag/cosmic ray/gamma ray, etc type areas where we simply do not have enough information and understanding to ‘diss’ solar variation as a potential primary or secondary cause of earth climate changes.
As others note, many earth scientists, including myself, do not doubt that there are external influences on the earths climate – AND, for avoidance of doubt – these external influences MUST be significant (otherwise how does one explain cyclic Ice ages, for example!). Now, AFAIK, no-one has come up with demonstrable theories to explain all these possible external causes and effects. Svensmarks work is a simply a step towards such understanding.
As for the AGW – its mostly CO2 caused, ‘theory’ – it was already dead in the water. I just hope that some of the CO2 carbon derived warming ‘hype’ is now reassessed and ADMITTED as likely grossly over-exaggerated.
The likes of Hansen, Mann, etc – all need to start their climb downs real soon…….or they will simply look more and more foolish (if that’s possible?)

Y’know, there may be a really easy way to confirm the hypothesis here folks… Maybe that would stop some of the arguments between Leif, Mosher, Salvatore, and Vuk…. although they are entertaining to watch.

At any rate, my proposal is this:

If we do have a big reduction in solar activity over the next 2 or 3 solar cycles, why don’t we take detailed measurements of cosmic radiation, cloud cover (at varying latitudes and altitudes), and temperature over the next 30 years or so, and then it should be pretty darn easy to confirm or refute this hypothesis.

Claiming it has been confirmed yet is premature, and claiming it has been refuted already seems to be based on studies with insufficient data to actually confirm or deny anything.

So, let’s do some real science and maybe actually measure these things over the next 10, 20, or 30 years or so in the “real world” and see what the actual data tell us. Novel idea to be sure.

The problem with Feyerabend and similar “philosophers” is that their arguments are often used to justify “scientific” conclusions that are contra-reality merely because the investigator thinks his or her ideas have merit because they emerged spontaneously from their very own fuzzy little heads. It is bad enough when research is bent simply to maintain grant status; when sincerity displaces honesty, the infernal highway is funded for paving work.

Besides, read Francis Bacon and you will discover that the issue of theory interacting with results was a concern even in the 16th century. That was the reason Bacon advanced the scientific method to begin with. He argues that since a scientist cannot be objective, therefor he (well her as well) has to rely on the experiment to actually inform about nature. He did not anticipate Trenberth for instance asserting that the data must be wrong, since it didn’t match the model expectations. Trenberth is exhibiting Feyerabend-like sincerity as opposed to Baconian emphasis on experiment.

Anthony, You were kind to post a note with my post. Let me clarify it for you. You don’t have to qualify yourself on your own blog. Your character far surpasses mine. I know the work you put in to this site and the expense. It takes a huge toll on your mind body spirit and wallet. I extend my gratitude to you for maintaining a site that is needed more than money can compensate.

I am going to send you a contribution to that effect and for my being a smart ass. Keep up the unsurpassed effort.

My interest is in the weather and because of that l have real doubts that just on its own this idea would have any real impact on changes to the cloud cover.
But if it were linked along with changes to the jet stream as well, then yes this idea would have legs.

…So where are all the skeptics who should be shouting loudly that “it is proposed”… “as a possible explanation”? If this was an AGW paper that is exactly what you would all say.
++++++++++
Good questions Gail: But let us not forget that what stirs many skeptics into action. It is a natural survival instinct for those of us who don’t want to be bullied. I am especially skeptical when someone intends to scare the people who can forcibly take my money. That is also in part what differentiates (not in the calculus sense) conservatives from liberals. I digress.

Bob says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:22 pm
“Leif, I think you may be wrong. Do you remember all of the pre-press release admonitions about the CERN confirmatory paper a couple of years ago. They were clearly concerned the results would add ammunition to the skeptics.”

GLOBE international controls all established parties in all EU protectorates and needs the CO2AGW theory hoax as an excuse to justify food-to-fuel policies.
And they control science funding in the EU.
If you want to do science in the EU you play by the rules of GLOBE international or you don’t play.

OK, you convinced me a long time ago that the correlation on this matter doesn’t exist. But if this experiment holds up, doesn’t it raise the question as to why the correlation doesn’t exist?

I ask this in the same vein as CO2. We know what the physical properties are in isolation in the lab. What we don’t seem to know is why these don’t exhibit themselves as expected in the earth system as a whole. The answer most likely lies with our lack of understanding regarding totality of all feed backs + changes due to factors unrelated to CO2. Does this not raise the need for a similar discussion? Or is there something else I have missed?

“Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if he is able to show it in a lab he has the problem of explaining why it doesnt actually happen outside the lab.”

————————————————

Quite right, however that is not limited to Svensmark’s hypothesis. There are many others that are having an issues with the “real world”, including one very high profile hypothesis.

Thanks Gail (and others) for pointing out the flaw in the “Forbush events refute this” argument. I am constantly disappointed with people trying to refute Svensmark using – what are essentially – proxies instead of looking at the experimental data being developed.

Yes, we are still a long way from linking solar activity to global temperatures, but this is a significant postulated mechanism for how the correlation between solar activity and earth temperature could occur. Arguing that the theory is wrong because the correlation is not perfect or that Forbush events are not seen in monthly (or weekly) cloud cover is not valid because you are not addressing the theory.

Quite simply, this is a testable hypothesis which has not been refuted on the link between GCR and cloud nuclei. The upstream link (high solar activity shielding the earth from GCR) seems to be accepted, but there is equivocation over the downstream link between the cloud nucleii and actual clouds. This one will be hard as I doubt we will be able to create a big enough SKY3 to get results on the kind of scale needed to perform experiments, so we will have to rely on better cloud data and accept the vagaries of observational vs experimental science.

Over-interpreting the theory as “the answer refuting AGW” is just as wrong as refuting it based on poor proxies. I am not ready to beatify Svensmark yet (and apart from one or two comments, few people are on this thread), but credit has to be given where it is due: he has developed a testable hypothesis and been prepared to test it properly – though well-designed experiments. Kudos.

Bob says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:22 pm“about how to convert sulfur dioxide and water vapor to sulfuric acid in their reaction chamber.”
Leif, I think you may be wrong.
Read they paper. Its conclusion is “It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second signiﬁcant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental ﬁndings”

davidmhoffer says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:49 pmDoes this not raise the need for a similar discussion?
Discussions are always good and needed, but should not degenerate into worship by the faithful, seeking solace from evil CAWG.

I am seeing some confirmation bias in this thread. This experimental result is a possible piece of the puzzle, but it is easy to get excited about something that confirms one’s own prejudices.

A healthy skepticism is the hallmark of a true Scientist. Being an Advocate is not doing science, it is being political. I am not referring to any attempts to defend or discredit Svensmark’s findings, but rather my remarks are directed to those who seem to take this one set of experimental laboratory results and assume that they validate the Cosmic Ray/Atmospheric Clouds/Temperature Modulation Theory – and then take it personally when others argue for a different interpretation.

And another thing: It is very obvious that (among others) Steven Mosher and Dr. Svalgaard irritate some of the commenters here with their skeptical attitudes – heck it annoys me sometimes, but being skeptical is what a real scientist does. He (she) does everything they can think of to disprove their own hypothesis, and THEN they ask other scientists to try their best to prove them wrong. In other words, a true scientist, a good scientist is even skeptical about their own work. Note that, in my opinion, some of you would do well to emulate Gail Combs or Richard Courtney (there are many others as well) in their demeanor in this forum. In general, when they disagree with a poster, they will provide a counter argument, and links to sources to back up their argument. They will not whine and make personal remarks about those they disagree with.

Since I am not a scientist, I come here to the WUWT comment section to learn directly from the scientists and others who are willing to share their knowledge. While this thread isn’t quite the worst I have seen here at WUWT, I do resent those who derail comment threads by engaging in off-topic rants and childish behavior. Grow up or go somewhere else.

Rob Potter says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:04 pmThe upstream link (high solar activity shielding the earth from GCR) seems to be accepted
Because there is both a good correlation and a good theory explaining it.

but there is equivocation over the downstream link between the cloud nucleii and actual clouds.
Because the correlation is not there and that therefore no theory is needed.

Feyerabend was wrong, Sidron. Even he admitted that he didn’t understand the consistent success of science, in light of his own analysis that such success should not happen. The discordance between the expectations stemming from his own analysis and the undoubted success of science amounts to a thorough disproof of his case.

Neither you nor Feyerabend allow the interplay of theory and result. The content of results is independent of theory. Only interpretation is theory-bound. When interpretation is proven wrong by by the non-concordance of theory-based prediction and subsequent results, theory is changed or discarded or reconstructed. Sometimes radically. Always independently of human preference.

This empirical winnowing forever removes theory from dependence on subjective content. Freedom from subjectivity has been central to science since Galileo. It’s time you caught up. Too late for Feyerabend.

You’re also wrong about CO2 by the way. Radiation physics says nothing about how any increased energetic content is partitioned by, and into, the climate system. It may not show up as sensible heat at all. F. Moeller made this point in 1963, in a debate with Gilbert Plass. It’s still true today. Climate physics has not advanced to the point where the small perturbation of increased GHGs can be resolved from background processes. It seems apparent that hubris has caused AGW-driven climate scientists to ignore this truth.

Interesting that they cite Ultraviolet radiation as a factor. Wasn’t there a paper posted at WUWT a month or so ago that showed a very high correlation between the ‘ozone holes’ and temperatures? I seem to recall it.

Well there is more to the Svensmark theory, than just the numbers of solar particles and cosmic rays. The interration between the reversals of solar magnetism, and non-reversals of the earth’s magnetism, should result in different steering of arriving charged particles, which tend to spiral around the magnetic field lines. This can alter the distribution of charged particle flux, between tropical regions, where plenty of atmospheric moisture can be found, and more polar regions, where there is less water vapor to condense.

Of course, such conjectures are subject to proper study of the magnitude of these effects. If it is just a butterfly’s wing effect; who cares; but maybe it could have an observable effect.

I’m still open to the idea; but would certainly like to know more about the amplitude of such variations. I am quite sold on the idea, that cloud modulation negative feedback is pretty much in total control of earth’s climate, as far as mean Temperature regulation. The CO2 mechanism, though real, is pretty much a non starter as far as I am concerned; particularly since the reality constantly fails to follow the computer models.

There is going to be no correlation over an 11 year period, it takes years of a prolonged solar minimum to get any solar/climate correlation. Further the degree nf magnitude change and duration of time have to reach certain levels, levels that never get reached during the so called 11 year sunspot cycle.

Ultraviolet and ozone connection transfers to the atmospheric circulation connection. At times of low solar actiivty (sustained) the ozone distribution is such that the polar regions of the stratosphere warm relative to the lower latitudes of the stratosphere giving rise to a more meridional atmospheric circulation and hence more clouds, snow cover and precipitatoin and hence colder N.H. temperatures.

Again this is not going to happen over the course of the so called 11 year sunspot cycle, which serves to keep solar /climate correlations low and the climate constant.

I hope all commenters will take the time to view the 52-minute documentary. This was beautifully done, professionally scripted, and quite inspiring. Excellent explanations, considerable careful coverage and comments from Nir Shaviv and Jan Veizer, etc.
OK, Leif, I can already hear (and agree with) your comment that the other side of the story was not covered adequately. And as long as the mechanism for growth to CN size still eludes us, the hypothesis will not become a theory. However, the way ahead has been marked out.

Svensmark’s hypothesis being put to test in a chamber designed to generate condensation nuclei large enough for water vapor formation is even more compelling when one understands that clouds (other than ground fog) form due to warmer moist air rising into cooler air aloft, resulting in an increase differential between the warmer moist air rising and the air it is rising in.
I bought into the theory when he first published it. It makes logical sense.

In this post I read the word (and variations thereof) ‘experiment’ 12 times. Next time you see a Warmist paper see how many times you can count the word ‘experiment’. If you do see the word ‘experiment’.

Dan Murphy says at September 4, 2013 at 1:06 pm …
Good point. I’m as guilty as anyone on this thread.

But I still think the work should lead to a Nobel Prize sooner rather than later. All science is wrong eventually but Svensmark has swum against the flow and found things (by experiment and in accordance with theory) that no-one else has.

It is hard not to be overly enthusiastic about a pioneer who keeps delivering the goods.

And, even *if* Svensmark et al is true, CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, whose effects are seen throughout paleoclimate and whose radiative properties are probably the *best* known part of climate science (both theoretically and observationally).
———-

The problem is that if you look at the orthodoxy, as CO2 has continued to icrease, temperatures haven’t. Thats the real world. So, basically the models are trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if they are able to show it in a computer they have the problem of explaining why nature is getting it wrong outside that computer.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Very well said, Steve!

This, as a fledgeling hypothesis (only in the orthodoxy would it be “settled” after a mere decade or two), may well go a very long way to explaining that pesky lack of co-operation by nature! So I’m sure that, in the interest of scientific truth, all the orthodox scientists will be rushing to validate and expand on the idea to help iron out the minor wrinkles, no?

A mechanism that increases the condensation nuclei is a mechanism for increased cloud formation. And since Svensmark’s hypothesis has a global affect, it has greater meaningful influence than an aircraft attempting to could seed a local condition.

Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen.
A sober assessment of the available evidence …

William:
Time to take your head out of the sand. There are cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.The question is not if solar magnetic cycle changes cause cyclic warming and cooling of the planet but rather how.

There is now unequivocal observed cooling at both poles. There is an unexplained significant change to the solar magnetic cycle.

Scientists require imagination and persistence to solve problems. Svensmark is an old fashion meticulous persistent scientist.

Svensmark will be proven correct by abrupt cooling of the earth due to the solar 24 cycle change.

It seems to be fairly widely accepted here that an active sun leads to less clouds and an inactive sun to more clouds.

Leif says that the correlation is not good enough to be meaningful but we haven’t had cloud data for long.

Recent cloud data from the Earthshine project shows that global cloud cover reduced during the recent warming spell and stopped decreasing or may have increased somewhat around 2000 when the warming stopped as well.

We have two options to consider:

i) Svensmark suggests more clouds from simple cloud seeding but gives no guidance as to how that then affects the structure of the atmospheric circulation to achieve the full range of phenomena that we see with latitudinally shifting climate zones, changed jet stream behaviour and changes in atmospheric ‘blocking events.

ii) I suggest that the solar variations directly alter ozone chemistry thus altering the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere and I have described how that could translate into the full range of observed phenomena.

How to test between the two?

We need to know whether the simple cloud seeding process can alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere in the way required to achieve the observed phenomena.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:34 pmtoday is wonderful news for those of us who know the solar/climate connection exist.
For the people who know, no proofs or evidence is needed, so why is this ‘wonderful news’?

Stephen Wilde says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:39 pmIt seems to be fairly widely accepted here that an active sun leads to less clouds and an inactive sun to more clouds.
Leif says that the correlation is not good enough to be meaningful but we haven’t had cloud data for long.
In which case there is no basis for something to be ‘widely accepted’.

Cold plasma has been well-hidden. Space physicists have long lacked clues to how much of this electrically charged gas exists tens of thousands of miles above Earth and how the stuff may impact our planet’s interaction with the sun. Now, a new method developed by Swedish researchers makes cold plasma measurable and reveals significantly more cold, charged ions in Earth’s upper altitudes than previously imagined.

At these lofty elevations, storms of high-energy charged particles – space weather – roil the atmosphere, creating auroras , buffeting satellites, and sometimes wreaking havoc with electronic devices and electric grids on Earth. The new evidence of abundant cold (i.e. low-energy) ions may change our understanding of this tumultuous space weather and lead to more accurate forecasting of it, scientists say. The finding might also shed light on what’s happening around other planets and moons – for instance, helping explain why the once robust atmosphere of Mars is so wispy today.

“The more you look for low-energy ions, the more you find,” said Mats André, a professor of space physics at the Swedish Institute of Space Physics in Uppsala, Sweden, and leader of the research team. “We didn’t know how much was out there. It’s more than even I thought.”

ww.irf.se/Topical/Press/?dbfile=Elusive matter found to be abundant far above Earth &dbsec=Administration

“Ultraviolet and ozone connection transfers to the atmospheric circulation connection. At times of low solar actiivty (sustained) the ozone distribution is such that the polar regions of the stratosphere warm relative to the lower latitudes of the stratosphere giving rise to a more meridional atmospheric circulation and hence more clouds, snow cover and precipitatoin and hence colder N.H. temperatures.”

Well that is what I’ve been saying for some time save that I would add the effect of other wavelengths and particles relevant to the ozone creation / destruction process.

Stephen they worked in conjunction with one another not opposite. A weak sun promotes more clouds through an increase in cosmic rays andUV light/ozone changes promote a more meridional atmospheric circulation. They both contribute, it is not one or the other.

You are taking the wrong approach in trying to say they both can’t occur in response to a quiet sun, when in reality that is exactly what happens.

I have been saying this for years, and Stephen you can add the volcanic /solar relationship to that.

Gail Combs says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:02 pm
It made it through Peer Review without being censored.
Because it is not really about the climate, but about how to convert sulfur dioxide and water vapor to sulfuric acid in their reaction chamber.
——————-
So it would only have been censored if it mentioned climate, I see now. Thanks for clearing that up.

“Doesn’t have to be either/or.
Small fluctuation in spectral composition of TSI & larger variation in solar magnetic flux could both be involved in climatic cycles.”

I accept a possible effect from the magnetic flux but only if part of the thermal effects in the atmosphere are due to charged particles which the magnetic flux would direct in at the poles along the charge lines. I think the wavelength variations play a greater role and they are not affected by the magnetic field are they?

We need to know whether the simple cloud seeding process can alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere in the way required to achieve the observed phenomena.
I don’t see how it could.

From a layman’s perspective the question of Willis’s storms as temperature regulators springs to mind.
More clouds will affect how these storms are created. And these storms do move energy and humidity vertically.
But the effect of these movements will vary depending on their latitude. The Jet Stream will carry on regardless but it will be affected by the temperature and humidity of the Tropics.

To an ignoramus like myself this seems like a way that the formation of clouds could alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere.Not that I am endorsing this as anything but idle speculation.

Svensmark is doing something that is all but unique in climate science, namely, conducting experiments. In addition, they are active rather than passive experiments (that is unique in climate science). His work is completely in accord with scientific method.

Svensmark’s hypotheses may prove to be falsified as his experiments advance (another unique mark in climate science). But Svensmark will be the first to present the evidence that falsifies his hypotheses (another unique mark in climate science). Falsification is a step forward in science. Too bad that Alarmists are too proud and too fearful to take that step.

The experiment discussed in this article cannot prove that Svensmark’s major hypothesis is true. But it is a necessary step in a planned serious of active experiments (another unique mark in climate science).

I think that Leif’s criticisms above are directed at the title of the post rather than Svensmark’s experiment.

I forgot to add an important point. If there remain some bozos who are prone to claim that active experimentation in climate science is not possible then look at Svensmark’s work. You do not need a second Earth to do experiments in climate science.

Stephen ,an increase in cosmic rays is one of the many secondary effects associated with a prolonged solar minmimum just as a change in UV light/ ozone distribution, both which create or result in an increase in clouds.

The first process through condensation nuclei ,the other through a more meridional atmospheric circulation. They work together in tandem not opposing.

“Stephen they worked in conjunction with one another not opposite. A weak sun promotes more clouds through an increase in cosmic rays andUV light/ozone changes promote a more meridional atmospheric circulation. They both contribute, it is not one or the other.”

That isn’t what Svensmark actually says as far as I know. Does he specify how the increased clouds affect the thermal structure of the atmosphere and the degree of jet stream meridionality?

I think the change in cloud quantities is more likely due to changes in the length of the lines of air mass mixing than additional cloud seeding.

I know that cosmic particles will seed clouds in an enclosed space with favourable conditions but the atmosphere is not short of nuclei in the first place.

I suspect that pressure and humidity constraints in an atmosphere open to space limit the amount of cloud that can be formed at any given temperature regardless of the availability of nuclei.

“this seems like a way that the formation of clouds could alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere.”

Clouds are a consequence of the vertical and horizontal temperature profiles as air masses of different qualities mix and mingle so that one or other of them falls to a temperature below the dew point. Convective clouds can affect local temperature profiles by releasing latent heat of condensation but that is quickly eliminated by enhanced uplift. Most clouds are layer clouds and not convective.

I hope readers realise that I am humbly wary of going too far in presenting an alternative to Svensmark at this juncture. I don’t expect to persuade many here, merely put my thoughts in the public domain for future reference.

Gail Combs says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:02 pm
It made it through Peer Review without being censored.
Because it is not really about the climate, but about how to convert sulfur dioxide and water vapor to sulfuric acid in their reaction chamber.

Would you agree that climate models are not really about the climate, but about how to convert the rise of co2 into extra warming?

The number of cloud condensation nuclei in the air ranges from around 100 to 1000 per cubic centimeter. The various types of possible CCNs also differ in hygroscopic quality. Therefore, I don’t think that the atmosphere today is everywhere saturated with potential CCNs.

So IMO the processes being studied by Dr. Svensmark could indeed influence cloudiness & climate.

Nor does it seem to me, in my inexpert, to say the least, opinion, that the cosmic ray hypothesis necessarily should vitiate your ozone idea.

Clouds are a consequence of the vertical and horizontal temperature profiles as air masses of different qualities mix and mingle so that one or other of them falls to a temperature below the dew point. Convective clouds can affect local temperature profiles by releasing latent heat of condensation but that is quickly eliminated by enhanced uplift. Most clouds are layer

That is correct Stephen, and Svensmark, is simply saying an increase in cosmic rays will faciltate what you are saying because there is more condensation nuclei available which can give rise to more clouds.

I do accept that an increase in clouds from more condensation nuclei, if it actually happens, could enhance the efficiency of the processes that I prefer but I don’t see how it could work without changing stratosphere temperatures first.

If the temperatures in the stratosphere stayed the same I think that pressure and humidity constraints would restrict if not suppress the increase in clouds from more nuclei alone.

Assuming the experiment is replicated, then it does not accord with existing understanding of cloud nucleation. The next and vital step is to determine why the experiment provides the observed result. Or, as the above article reports Henrik says

Now we want to close in on the details of the unexpected chemistry occurring in the air

If that theoretical understanding were achieved then – as I say above – Henrik’s work would be worthy of a Nobel (and that is not an exaggeration) because it would open up new areas of the physics of climate for study.

When – and only when – those new studies are conducted then it will be known how important the Svensmark Effect is and why.

On one hand, and as Leif keeps saying,
in the short term the effect seems to be too small for detection. However, this is debatable because of the analysis of Forbush Events.

On the other hand,
the work by Shaviv suggests the effect is very significant over millennial time scales. However, it is hard to understand why when the short-term effects are so small.

So, if the chemistry can be resolved then there is much physics to be investigated.

At this stage it is the chemistry that needs to be debated.
All the discussion about possible and conjectured effects on jet steams and ENSO is pointless at this stage. Until the chemistry is resolved nobody can know if this work is significant or not.

Unfortunately, there are ‘champions’ of various ideas concerning Sun/climate interactions and they want discussion (adoption?) of their ideas wherever they can get it. Recently we have had two WUWT threads on ENSO hijacked by solar discussions. In this thread – where solar discussion is appropriate – the needed and important discussion of possible chemical mechanisms in the atmosphere is being displaced.

“Cloud chamber was first demonstrated in the early years of this century (1912) by the Scottish physicist (C. T. R.) Wilson. It was among the earliest means of making the tracks of ionising radiation visible (they formed streaks of clouds). The source of ions in the chamber is a combination of the normal background COSMIC RAYS and the NATURAL RADIATION of the local environment.”

So the Technical University of Denmark waited 101 years before they added the radiation to make the theory work. I trust that C.T.R Wilson is referenced prominently. I saw a demonstration of the phenomenon in a physics class in 1956 at Wesley College in Winnipeg. I note that CAGW proponents always mention Tyndall and Arhenius when it comes to CO2’s uptake of LWIR but, curiously, no mention of cosmic rays causing clouds as demonstrated by Wilson. Indeed, I haven’t seen much mention of Wilson and his cloud chamber anywhere.

I’m no scientist but I heard about this theory in a book by the science writer Nigel Calder called the ‘Manic Sun’ which was published in the mid nineties I believe. As I understood the mechanism then it was nothing to do with the suns brightness but rather it magnetic activity. So when the ever present at varying levels of cosmic rays are hitting the earth they form clouds that reflect the suns light thus cooling (like the little ice age when the sun apparently was inactive in terms of sunspots and solar wind and flares for several hundred years) and when the sun is magnetically active with lots of sunspots then it protects the earth from cosmic rays thus making it warmer due to less clouds.
Now this was all dismissed out of hand almost by the climate science world and only the sceptic and poor Henrik soldering on with PR by Nigel Calder with the internet and the growing sceptic movement acting like the cavalry arriving.

Just watching that documentary has just shown me very clearly how another even possible bigger player is the Milky Way. As its shown the earth orbiting the sun in our solar system and the solar system orbiting every 250 million years the Milky Way and how on that journey our solar system will pass through massively varying amounts of cosmic rays that the modulating effect by the sun can possibly be overwhelmed. So there’s the suns activity, and then the varying density of cosmic rays and then the Milancovitch theory of earth’s orbit and axis changes and one thinks Blimey !!!! there’s a lot going on a cosmic scale which seems to drown out any co2 level changes.

The hard donkey work for Svensmark has been proving that cosmic rays actually do increase low levl cloud formation.

“That is correct Stephen, and Svensmark, is simply saying an increase in cosmic rays will faciltate what you are saying because there is more condensation nuclei available which can give rise to more clouds.”

That is exactly correct. Recall cloud seeding efforts. Imagine the entire planet having a mechanism that increases clouds, More clouds, more reflection. If getting colder, then greater cooling…if getting warmer, then less warming. Given the flat or declining global temperatures, maybe one might consider the obvious affect of increasing GCRs.

“Yeah, its the uplift that struck me.
I don’t see anything here that necessarily puts Svensmark in conflict with Wilde. They may well complement each other.
It seems to fit so far.
And I look forward to S Wilde being ready to give us what he has, when he’s got his ducks in a row. Because it look like it will be very interesting”

In reply to my father (RichardSCourtney),
I can’t discuss the chemistry without knowing the medium the chemistry is taking place in. For the atmosphere that means I need to know what is going on with the pressure and the temperature.

Stephen Wilde seems to think the interactions between pressure and temperature (and moisture carried or condensed out) will dominate cloud nucleation effects. But I don’t know enough about how the pressure and temperature vary in the atmosphere – especially in storms – to definitely agree with him.

A weather-forecast cell, which averages square miles, is of no relevance to the chemistry that could be pushed over the thermodynamic edge and dropped out of the system within a single hailstone or the shimmer on a raindrop.

That is why the weather patterns are important to understand how the chemical reactions are driven. We do not know where the chemical reactions balance so we can’t know why the clouds are formed or fizzle out.

“That is why the weather patterns are important to understand how the chemical reactions are driven. We do not know where the chemical reactions balance so we can’t know why the clouds are formed or fizzle out.”

Friends:
[…]
At this stage it is the chemistry that needs to be debated.
All the discussion about possible and conjectured effects on jet steams and ENSO is pointless at this stage. Until the chemistry is resolved nobody can know if this work is significant or not.

[…]

Richard
————————————————————————————————————————-

That, sadly, seems to be an effect of the orthodoxy proclaiming “settled science” over a couple of decades, much of which has seen little more than either confirmatory (assumed from the start) studies or attempts to fudge the discrepancies between models and reality by questioning reality.

From the start we’ve been told that the basic theory is complete, and people on both sides have accepted the notion that any theory (or alternative) should be “born” complete; a scientific microwave dinner. Because of that, interesting work like this is expected to resolve all issues at a stroke.

Personally, I believe that’s the biggest single disservice that Climatology has inflicted on mankind. None of the economics will really matter over time (all that “wasted” money is only really getting moved elsewhere, after all!) but the belief that scientific advance should always involve instant gratification will take a long time to die!

In the end ToA radiation balance has to be maintained long term if the atmosphere is to be retained.

Anything that seeks to disturb that radiative balance is countered by circulation changes.

The most basic position is that cloud formation and dissipation is governed overall by the configuration of the specific circulation required to maintain that ToA radiative balance.

If cosmic rays do form more clouds then the circulation must change to accommodate them but to achieve that change in the first place requires some sort of thermal effect as a precursor.

If there is no initial thermal effect then the creation of an extra cloud molecule in one place will be cancelled by the dissipation of another cloud molecule elsewhere.

To be convinced by the Svensmark hypothesis I would need to be shown how cosmic rays could effect the initial thermal change such that the system overall could retain the additional cloud molecules created.

As far as I know ,extra cosmic rays from low solar activity have no significant initial thermal impact do they?

Dr. Miyahara is difficult to understand sometimes. She has trouble with Rs, Ps, and Ls, but the talk is clear, and in my view, riveting. I’ve watched it three times because it answers so many questions.

Dr. Lief Svalgaard gave a talk at this same conference: “The Long-term Variation of Solar Activity.”

I’d always assumed that the likeliest place to look for any relationship between the solar cycle and cloud cover would be in the ultraviolet wavelength, as this is the range which varies the most. We know that ultraviolet light is harmful to microbes (the traditional way of disinfecting buckets was to leave them to dry in the sun). And we know that microbes play a big role in seeding clouds, particularly those which result in precipitation and hence cooling. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_long_strange_journey_of_earths_traveling_microbes/2436/

So when ultraviolet radiation is at its peak, at solar maximum, there will be fewer airborne microbes surviving and hence less cloud and rain.

I know that the variation in UV over a solar cycle is small on the face of it (approx. 1.5%) and even the variation between now and the Maunder Minimum is estimated at just 3%. But then again, we’re only looking to explain temperature differences of fractions of a degree celcius.

The hypothesis is that water vapor in the air that otherwise wouldn’t have condensed onto a cloud nucleus will do so thanks to increased cosmic ray flux. There might be a feedback effect of some sort from a cooled surface & lower troposphere, but the process isn’t temperature-dependent to start, within normal bounds, if I understand the evolving hypothesis correctly.

You may find material of use to you in Calder’s discussion of Svensmark, et al:

“To be convinced by the Svensmark hypothesis I would need to be shown how cosmic rays could effect the initial thermal change such that the system overall could retain the additional cloud molecules created. As far as I know ,extra cosmic rays from low solar activity have no significant initial thermal impact do they?”

The temperature is not the issue; condensation nuclei is the issue. In a given atmospheric condition where clouds could form except there exists a lack of condensation nuclei vs condensation nuclei by which to form those clouds is the difference. If an increase in GRCs produce an ion by which water vapor can cling to, then an increase is condensation nuclei provides a mechanism for more clouds, more reflection. Rising air = clouds can form. Descending air or atmospheric compression, fewer or no clouds. No condensation nuclei, no clouds. Read up on cloud formation and dew point.

Sun-Earth link is far stronger than many here assume, it is not well understood ; moreover it is sometime denied by those who should know better.
During 100 or so years the Earth rotation has slowly changed to an extent of about 5ms pp. To my surprise, I found that ~1,2ms pp or about 25% of it is synchronised with the sunspot magnetic cycle.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
Neither of the known direct solar nor the solar controlled inputs do have enough energy variability to achieve such an effect.
One could speculate endlessly, but before we settle for the GCR, TSI, SCL or any other variable as a primary cause for the decadal global temperature change, it is of fundamental importance to understand all the causal or coincidental geo-solar, factual or apparent links.
Despite all pretence such understanding doesn’t exist.

To my mind for this idea to work it also needs to be linked to changes in the jet.
Because a weaker waving and more unstable jet would lead to more cloud cover. Due to the warm and cold air blocks meeting over larger areas. Also a weaker jet in summer means you get a increase in weak and floppy lows forming. Which leads to a increase in capping and so more cloud cover forming in layers rather then the towering Cumulus cloud.
Also along with a more waving jet there also seems to be a increase in wind shear. Which along with reducing the forming of hurricanes it also helps to spread the cloud cover over a larger area. You only need to look at the Fulldisk satellite images of the lndian ocean to see this in action.

“One could speculate endlessly, but before we settle for the GCR, TSI, SCL or any other variable as a primary cause for the decadal global temperature change, it is of fundamental importance to understand all the causal or coincidental geo-solar, factual or apparent links.”

Congratulations on the publication of your new research on cosmic ray interaction with the Earth-Atmosphere System.

Going forward, I hope you still have the energy, enterprise and entrepreneurial skills to keep your line of research alive.

I find it encouraging that there is a significant line of research which is independent and orthogonal to the myopic AGW research. Your efforts are a wakeup signal to the AGW biased climate community which is the basis of the unbalanced and manipulated IPCC assessment processes.

Mr Svensmark, it is possible that you are inspiring new generations of scientists to actively seek orthogonal and independent paths.

Absolutely, it was always going to be magnetic/gravitational modulation of cosmic rays together with solar activity.
Piers Corbyn isn’t looking so silly now is he?
Of course the warmists are going to attempt to blame the pause on this effect which may be difficult if the cloud cover records don’t match the temperature plateau.

REPLY: Piers looks silly because he makes grandiose forecast skill claims that are so vaguely written they can compete with Jeane Dixon style astrological forecast language, not because he believe is cosmic ray modulation – Anthony”

I am no expert on Piers Corbyn .
But for the record, Piers Corbyn does not endorse Svendmarks theory of cosmic rays controlling climate.
Corbyn has said its only the Sun/Earth/Moon magnetic connection that controls weather and climate.
Anthony I wish you would further examine Corbyns forecasts.
They are very specific.IMO too specific as he could have a better track record if he fudged dates more.
Im amazed by what he accomplishes.(Although I havent properly audited his entire forecasts.Nor has this site)
Whats impressive is his prediction of specific extreme weather events.

Does Svensmark suggest that the level of cosmic radiation is in flux – or that fluctuations in the sun’s energies cause variations in the earth’s magnetic shield?

==========================================
I dont think they do but here is some food for thought.

The sun is like a wave machine in a pool. When waves are high they consume things passing by and redirect them. When there are no waves the items skip readily across it.

As a child I used to skip rocks on a pond and on a river. When the river or pond has waves the rock doesn’t make it across the pond. When its calm it is very easy to get the rock to skip across the pond. Solar wind are waves of energy. When the solar output is low there are few waves to collect these particles and they strike the planet. When solar wind is high the number of particles is significantly lower.

Very well said. The modern mind is not well-suited for the patience necessary for science. Svensmark is a remarkable exception. Both Alarmists and Skeptics tend think that the next article will provide the solution if we only exercise our ingenuity fully.

True, I don’t see what cloud variation has to do with the AO changing, especially at the kind of scales that it changes at.

========================

Look to the planets heat budget. Right now the poles are cooling rapidly so the energy is pushing out from the poles. Remember the flow of energy is always negative to positive. In a cooling world the wind shear and jets will reflect the strength of the negative position. In a warmer world it becomes less negative and thus the shift will be equatorial to poles moving the jets as less energy is exerted against the equatorial jets.

The Arctic has been cooler this summer due to a more positive AO/NAO, but look what happened last summer. If we get a whole bunch of cool summers this decade, we’ll see much warming in the Arctic. I didn’t really follow the rest of your comment.

It seems reasonable to me that an increase in low tropospheric cloud cover could affect air circulation patterns & mean global temperature.

Consider the case of the hothouse Cretaceous, with its equable climate, showing little temperature gradient from the equator to the poles. Contrast that situation with the icehouse world of today & even moreso of glacial phases. The colder, drier world is windier, with storm tracks possibly farther south.

This paper attempts to explain the failure of GC models to reproduce Cretaceous climate by their neglect of clouds & CCNs of biological origin. Needless to say it wasn’t welcomed by the Team.

The Arctic has been cooler this summer due to a more positive AO/NAO, but look what happened last summer. If we get a whole bunch of cool summers this decade, we’ll see much warming in the Arctic. I didn’t really follow the rest of your comment.
==================================

Think of it this way. The power exerted outward from the poles controls flows. If you have high flow you will have high air turnover and thus warming (or what you perceive as warming) This is deceptive as the fact is, the cold is being pushed deeply towards the equator. (negative to positive flow – energy physics). The Ocean oscillations will amplify or buffer the intensity of the change.

When the planet is warming their is less energy at the poles and thus less flow. This allows the equatorial jets to expand and move upward. this expands the areas of warmer or temperate zones.

It is only when the planets energy budget comes close to equilibrium that balance is found between the polar and equatorial jets. Right now the polar jets are much stronger than they were just 10 years ago. yes it is cooling, But the ice formation in the arctic is delayed until the heat budget returns closer to equilibrium. Given the Antarctic increase this year we are nearing that dream balance. The arctic is always about 2 years behind the antarctic (im not sure why) but here we are and i expect the ice rebound to become very rapid the next few years.

To add to my last post, the sun is now beyond solar max and cooling will continue at the poles. Depending on the severity of the continued cooling the energy imbalance may slow ice formation for a few more years. The key is ocean oscillations. What are they now and how will they amplify or buffer what is going on. Were on the cooling side of many of them. This leads me to believe that ice will rebound significantly the next few years in the Arctic as the Antarctic has done. There simply wont be much heat available to continue the melt.

In the end ToA radiation balance has to be maintained long term if the atmosphere is to be retained.
Anything that seeks to disturb that radiative balance is countered by circulation changes. The most basic position is that cloud formation and dissipation is governed overall by the configuration of the specific circulation required to maintain that ToA radiative balance. If cosmic rays do form more clouds then the circulation must change to accommodate them but to achieve that change in the first place requires some sort of thermal effect as a precursor.

While there is little doubt the climate system is full of self-regulatory mechanisms I’d have to note that surely this (cosmic ray effect) is a question of degree and timing – how much there is and how long the process takes.

If some event resulted in a steady escalation of cosmic ray reaching earth over a prolonged period, the cloud formation may escalate over that time period, with the climate eventually reaching a new normal and stabilizing (or fluctuating) around that level of temperature, cloud cover etc. Until the cosmic ray flux changes again.

If there is no initial thermal effect then the creation of an extra cloud molecule in one place will be canceled by the dissipation of another cloud molecule elsewhere.

This may eventually occur: More clouds = cooler climate = less water vapour in the air = less chance of droplet nuclei forming. But then (for that level of cosmic ray flux) the thermostat has been set at a new level.

There is no doubt that AR5 will be obsolete when it is published; the problem will be getting MSM and the politicians to say so.

oldseadog,

Politicians will never let this go. It means they can get more taxes and they are always interested in getting more taxes. If the ‘blame’ for the taxes can be transferred to a scientific concept few understand, it is the best of all worlds.

Any HAMS in the crowd? If you are a HF radio operator you know the myth about a constant sun is a myth. Solar min, you can barely reach your neighbors. Solar max you can reach around the world with less power than a light bulb. Sunspots are your measure, not TSI.

The leap made too far. I think folks are over-playing their hand re: a tiny difference causing a huge chain of events. Anthony’s color commentary is a good example of such a leap that is entirely unsubstantiated by the research article. What is important is the presence or absence of equatorial clouds and at a certain time span of the day. If cloud seeding is to measurably affect ENSO which then measurably affects land temperatures, any variance of something external like cosmic rays needs to be greater than the noise of natural intrinsic variation.

So no I am not buying this as proof of a Solar-Earth climate connection. It may indeed be yet another teeny tiny thing everybody goes gaga over….just like they did with anthropogenic CO2.

When we consider cosmic ray influences on clouds, lets consider just how much clouds vary of their own accord. Do changes in cosmic rays affect such a large entity in measurable ways? My hunch is that no, the variance is not enough to overcome internal sources of variation in cloud cover.

Stepohen wilde mumbles:
“Clouds are a consequence of the vertical and horizontal temperature profiles as air masses of different qualities mix and mingle so that one or other of them falls to a temperature below the dew point”

That is only the first condition. air well below the dew point will not form clods without condensation nuclei, and that is the whole point of Svensmark, in a nutshell.

But what really counts in the end is the earth’s albedo. You don’t have to be a genius (or perhaps you do) to see that white fluffy clouds as seen from space are brighter, at lest in the visible spectrum, than land or sea with no cloud cover.

And any photographer will tell you that cloud reduces light intensity by 4-8 times depending on how thick is is. Only takes a few percent of modulation of total global cloud cover to have drastic impacts.

So it cant be temperatures driving clouds – has to be the other way around. And we know that the oceans are so big that the air over them is always practically at the dew point all the time.

There is going to be no correlation over an 11 year period, it takes years of a prolonged solar minimum to get any solar/climate correlation. Further the degree of magnitude change and duration of time have to reach certain levels, levels that never get reached during the so called 11 year sunspot cycle……..”””””””

Salvatore, I didn’t lay out the concept very well.

Over a full 22 year solar magnetic cycle, evidently the sun’s magnetic field spends 11 years in one polarity direction and the next 11 years in the opposite direction. Now you add in the earth’s own magnetic field, which does not reverse on the same time scale, and you should get a net vector sum magnetic field in the sun earth region that shows a 22 year cyclic variation . Charged particles moving through the region, either from sun-earth or GCRs, will travel in paths that depend somewhat on the net magnetic field, about which they tend to spiral. Since the earth magnetic poles are in the geographic polar regions, many of these charged particles end up colliding with the earth in the vicinity of the earth magnetic poles, so this alters what otherwise might be expected to be a uniform flux of charged particles incident on earth. A 22 year cyclic variation in the net magnetic field of sun and earth, ought to shift the distribution of charged particles relative to the tropical moist areas or the dry polar areas, so the distribution of charged particle nucleated clouds, from pole to equator should have a 22 year cyclic change, with more clouds, when the magnetic steering towards the poles, is reduced.

Like I said, I don’t know enough about the solar fields vis a vis the earth field to estimate such effects, but Such a cyclic variation should be observable, if Svensmark is correct.

Having studied the Wilson Cloud chamber in the past, I find the Svensmark thesis to be compelling.

Pamela Gray says:
September 4, 2013 at 8:42 pm
When we consider cosmic ray influences on clouds, lets consider just how much clouds vary of their own accord. Do changes in cosmic rays affect such a large entity in measurable ways? My hunch is that no, the variance is not enough to overcome internal sources of variation in cloud cover.

Thank you, as always, for your insight, Pamela! I’ve pondered this long & hard, and discussed this a bit with Prof. Joel Norris from the Scripps Institution who presented an excellent colloquium on cloud physics to Fermilab National Accelerator Laboratory.

It is not that cosmic rays (GCR) affect existing clouds, but rather, they stimulate the formation of nuclei which will eventually form new clouds. Svensmark believes that the most important cloud formation is in the troposphere, but I’ve pondered if GCR might also stimulate very high clouds consisting of ice, rather than water, particles. Such phenomena as noctilucent clouds may result from both ionizing GCR and airborne, complex chemicals resulting from industrial processes.

Could such very high altitude ice-crystal clouds produce a negative, rather than positive, forcing on climate? NASA and others seem to think that high-altitude clouds act to trap infrared, but I’m not sure that they don’t block more incoming radiation, especially over the poles and land.

From ferd berple on September 4, 2013 at 7:35 pm (quoted out of order):

Sunspots are your measure, not TSI.

Per Livingston & Penn, sunspots are becoming less visible, soon might not be visible at all, as seen in the decreasing sunspot counts.

So sunspots are not the measure that will properly show solar activity. Got another?

Any HAMS in the crowd? If you are a HF radio operator you know the myth about a constant sun is a myth. Solar min, you can barely reach your neighbors. Solar max you can reach around the world with less power than a light bulb.

That’s strange. Wikipedia lists several factors that must be aligned for worldwide High Frequency propagation. Sunspot Cycle and Solar Activity are separate items.

In the Ionosphere proper, where those HF transmissions are bounced off of certain layers, the lowest layer, the D layer, is charged up by solar activity. It eats HF transmissions, thus when sunlight during the day fires up the D layer the possible usable transmission range gets drastically shorter.

Since “solar max” sure sounds like when the Sun’s emissions are most energetic thus when the D layer is stronger, and “solar min” when it’s weaker, “min” would have further possible HF transmissions than “max”. Which is exactly the reverse of what you said.

I’m late to this thread, but there have been a couple of papers recently that indicate there is a great deal we don’t know about atmospheric chemistry. Hence any theoretical predictions should be treated with caution until empirically supported. Mind you that would be a first for climate science.

It is good to see additional study further ironing out the specifics (while attempts to pretend all correlations were sheer coincidence were already revealed as transparently-biased professional propaganda, if contrasting to viewing the rarely-shown following for the many matches in the *derivative* of sea level rise, humidity, average cloud cover, and temperature patterns with cosmic ray history over recent decades and centuries: http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif )

September 4, 2013 at 10:37 pm
“…Hence any theoretical predictions should be treated with caution until empirically supported.”..
================
There are no predictions here, the data is barely understood.
“Caution”, understates the uncertainty of the conditions.

“The paper has this to say “It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second signiﬁcant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental ﬁndings”. They injected sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the chamber and managed to convert some of that [using UV-lamps] to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and found that adding ions to the mix made that process more efficient. This does not seem to be much of a confirmation of a correlation that has not held up over time in the first place.

Thankyou for demonstrating the normal warmunist excuse for ignoring science that contradicts your belief; i.e.Proclaim
1.
The paper must be peer reviewed to be considered unless it supports the cause and – in that case – it can be included in IPCC Reports
2.
If the paper is peer reviewed then it must be disregarded because of a perceived and irrelevant flaw in its author(s); e.g. he is a religious believer, he is not a Lord, he … etc.
3.
If the paper is peer reviewed and its author(s) cannot be smeared then the paper can be disregarded because it is not published in a ‘leading’ journal (i.e. make the claim which you have here).

All these proclamations are demonstrated to be falsehoods by countless examples.

For example, the seminal work on aeronautics was authored by two bicycle salesmen who published it in a magazine about bee keeping.

The value of that paper
is not affected by its authors not being scientists who developed their invention in attempt to make money,
is not affected by its not having been peer reviewed,
and is not affected by having been published in a small-circulation magazine.

The value of that paper is demonstrated by e.g. my recent flights to and from Indonesia.

“And, even *if* Svensmark et al is true, CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, whose effects are seen throughout paleoclimate and whose radiative properties are probably the *best* known part of climate science (both theoretically and observationally).”

Oh, really? Then how do you explain the lack of global warming in this century, despite rising CO2 levels?
How do you explain the lack of evidence in the ice core records? Without exception they show that CO2 followed the temperature, so temperature change caused the CO2 changes and not the other way around.
You refer to observations. Please give me a paleoclimate example where a change in CO2 was followed by a corresponding change in temperature? The key word is ‘followed’.

Of course, if CO2 didn’t drive climate change, what did? I suspect Svensmark has the answer.

CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. Greenhouses don’t work by trapping radiation, they work by trapping warm air. But CO2 is definitely a green gas, it’s probably why the world is getting greener.
Chris

“Seasonal rainfall is driven mainly by the migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. It migrates southwards through Tanzania in October to December, reaching the south of the country in January and February, and returning northwards in March, April, and May. This causes the north and east of Tanzania to experience two distinct wet periods – the short rains (or “Vuli”) in October to December and the long rains (or “Masika”) from March to May”

Northern Tanzania is at ~4 degrees N. The phenomenon is entirely due to changes in the sun’s angle which is quite small a change between the end of the winter rain and the onset of the spring rain period.

The second example is part of the Eschenbach Effect in which a half hour change in the onset of cumulus cloud development makes a significant difference in the heating (or cooling) effect on SST. Little things may mean a lot.

Needless to ask here, please correct me if I’m wrong: The real significance of the Svensmark experiment is that it provides a possible physical cause, a mechanism, for explaining an otherwise undoubted, unexplained close correlation of CFR with the geological and paleontological temperature record, is it not? As we all know, correlation is not causation, and the warmists ostensibly challenge this correlation because of no known possible mechanism. Although a lot remains to be worked out about the chain from CCN formation to weather, it seems to me that Svensmark has made a lot more convincing case for a cosmic ray mechanism than the warmists have been able to show for CO2. I mean where is THEIR experiment?

The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if he is able to show it in a lab he has the problem of explaining why it doesnt actually happen outside the lab.

That’s fine Stephen. In my view, this is just one piece of the cloud puzzle. Clouds (in all their different types and altitudes) are not well understood. If this mechanism is relevant and yet in the real world this effect turns out to not be important, it will be because there are other effects operating that ameliorate it. Dan Murphy had some good points above in this vein as well.

Clouds have two mechanisms for increasing albedo. One is fractional cover increase or decrease = more or less cloud cover. The second is the reflectivity which seems to be determined by the size of the cloud nucleation particles. An increased reflectivity can achieve greater albedo and less incoming power without a change in cloud cover. And that might be very hard to detect because there is a backscattering component that is angular dependent. Can anyone say L1 satellite for albedo measurements?

The most wonderful aspect of this was reading about an experiment, I didn’t detect the word ‘model’ once.
Exactly!
Another unusual aspect: when the the data and the theory didn’t agree, they felt obliged to do further work on both!

Gary Pearse, cloud changes are big events localized to macro and micro climate regions on Earth. Pressure cell shifts are big events localized to macro and micro climate regions. The potential % amount of variance from one state to the next is far greater than TSI % variance which is a tiny event Earth hardly notices. For those who jump on the UV “HUGE” change bandwagon, remember that UV is a tiny piece of IR and has only a tiny amount of energy in it relative to the visible spectrum of shortwave infrared. Kind of like CO2 is just a tiny part of greenhouse gasses, with water vapor being the major player. A 10% change in water vapor has a strong affect on radiative cooling. A 10% change in CO2 will be undetectable on radiative cooling. So too a % change in TSI produces a mathematical change in temperature (which is buried in internal noise). The same % change in UV is mathematically undetectable in temperature.

This is why I think changes in cosmic rays are a tiny event compared to cloud formation from internal sources on Earth. Indeed the Earth is ripe with stuff that can form clouds and produce rain. Salt spray, dust and other suspended particles that can attract water molecules are far more abundant and vary to a much greater degree than cosmic rays do.

Look up dry rain, or cloudless rain. We get that stuff in NE Oregon all the time. No cosmic rays need apply for the job.

M Courtney says September 4, 2013 at 2:40 pm
…
Stephen Wilde seems to think the interactions between pressure and temperature (and moisture carried or condensed out) will dominate cloud nucleation effects. But I don’t know enough about how the pressure and temperature vary in the atmosphere – especially in storms – to definitely agree with him.
…

Suggest a look be taken at super-cooled, but NOT frozen water; yes, water CAN exist at a temperature significantly BELOW 0 deg C and not be in a solid state (i.e. frozen).

Brad says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:50 pm
Leif’s post on another board on this paper:

“The paper has this to say “It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second signiﬁcant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental ﬁndings”. They injected sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the chamber and managed to convert some of that [using UV-lamps] to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and found that adding ions to the mix made that process more efficient. This does not seem to be much of a confirmation of a correlation that has not held up over time in the first place.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says September 4, 2013 at 10:15 pm
…
In the Ionosphere proper, where those HF transmissions are bounced off of certain layers,
…

Do not forget that MF (300 – 3,000 kHz) and LF (30 – 300 kHz) are affected by ‘those layers’ as well, speaking as one active in 160 meter band WSPR operations, and hopefully (IF the FCC will get in gear) 630 meter (472 – 479 kHz) band operations since the last WARC conference approved that as a world-wide ‘Amateur’ radio allocation. On the 160m band I regularly get ‘spots’ (automated web-based signal reports from other WSPR participants) from AUS (down under) and EU (over there) countries as well as all across the continental 48 on 160 meters (approx 1836 kHz).

Agreed. Nobody should expect to find a single control function/knob (despite the alarmists claims that CO2 is that knob!). The problem with small cause/effect systems is that if there are several, or even many tens or perhaps hundreds of such effects overlapped and interactive upon each other – almost NO amount of data or modeling would be able to separate them out. Now, add to that that we probably don’t even fully know what half the processes are or may be involved and it becomes a real needle in a haystack situation. Curve fitting type observations simply do not necessarily mean correlation – and could simply be a coincidental conjunction of a ‘mass’ of effects!
I know this sounds rather defeatist, – but it is the fact that Man, or more explicitly Climate Science Man, believes that they know what is happening and have the ability to lecture the rest of us instead of actually openly admitting that they know very little ‘concrete’ facts.
I’m quite disgusted at the simplification of the processes used to ‘model’ our climate – in the context that climate science boys believe that a few simple ‘catch all’ type forcings could even remotely be expected to reflect reality. The sooner we realise that the only way to delve into these small cause/effect realms is with greatly detailed measurement over long timescales, the better. How many billions have been spent delving into atomic structure over several decades? – that would be peanuts by comparison to the required data and analysis of global climate!
In short, the climate ‘team’ are writing a novel based on a few start middle and end paragraphs! At almost every stage of development of the ‘novel’, new and additional data and hypotheses will arise and this is likely to continue for many decades.
You know, the UK Metoffice studies a relatively tiny zone of the earth climate in order to give forecasts over an area of say 1000×1000 sq miles – and they can’t get that right half the time! – and this with supercomputers and lots of data!

Pamela Gray says September 5, 2013 at 7:28 am
…
This is why I think changes in cosmic rays are a tiny event compared to cloud formation from internal sources on Earth.

This, of course, does not in any way explain why we get thin, high-level cloud ‘decks’ forming mid-day on some summer days here deep in the heart of Texas; there are, apparently, a number of factors at work to form reflective ‘cloud’ material starting with water vapor to the initial formation of ‘water droplet (and/or ice) nuclei’ and upwards …

And to think, we could have saved hundreds of billions of dollars already spent on non-solutions to a non-problem if we had instead paid a single scientist to perform basic atmospheric experiments like this one.

When we consider cosmic ray influences on clouds, lets consider just how much clouds vary of their own accord. Do changes in cosmic rays affect such a large entity in measurable ways …

That’s the question, isn’t it?

When I can take an inch and a half (1 1/2″) diameter Sodium Iodide/Thallium-doped gamma scintillation detector NaI(Tl) ‘probe’ and observe a ‘background’ count of 3,000 to 4,000 CPM (counts or ticks per minute) at sea level and that value only INCREASES with altitude – what *is* that affect on the formation on cloud/water nuclei at altitude?

Jim, your cirrus clouds usually form in front of an encroaching warm front as it pushes water vapor up into the atmosphere where it “glaciates”, or forms ice crystals. Because the humidity is so low up there, the clouds that form are thin and easily swept into wispy shapes. I would imagine that Texas often has these as the humidity in the interior would be quite dry, especially in the northern parts. We get them here in NE Oregon too.

Speaking of muons, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Web site years ago had a great page on the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation, with climatic consequences. The graphics showed how the rays impacted muons.

When I posted some time ago that the orthodoxy-offending page had magically disappeared, Dr. Svalsgaard attributed it to funding cut backs. I’m not so sure.

only today was i told i should spend less time on here by a warmist. yet every visit compels me to spend more time here.the comments are almost the equal of the work in question.
constant inquisition,unlike the science is settled from the warmists,and real experiments , those who believe in the catastrophic element of AGW,wont even know what an experiment is.

This experiment shows how under certain conditions H2SO4 aerosols can grow to sufficient size to become CCN in a chamber. What hasn’t been done as far as I can see is to relate this to conditions in the atmosphere, for example while the pressure, temperature, SO2 and O3 are maintained at near surface values and above, the UV light used is 254nm which is removed by the ozone layer. Also the paper does not relate the gamma rays used to the expected cosmic ray fluxes in the lower atmosphere, is it a realistic simulation? This experiment is far from proving that Svensmark’s link between cosmic rays and global warming is confirmed.

In the Ionosphere proper, where those HF transmissions are bounced off of certain layers, the lowest layer, the D layer, is charged up by solar activity. It eats HF transmissions, thus when sunlight during the day fires up the D layer the possible usable transmission range gets drastically shorter.

You seem to be describing decreased HF propagation that correlates with diurnal periods of higher exposure to solar radiation. Since, as many on this thread have said, TSI doesn’t significantly vary, it seems as if his comment about changes in TSI having less effect on HF propagation could be germane. In other words, it’s quite possible that variation in TSI effect HF propagation much less than solar factors which vary significantly.

(Diurnal fluctuations of exposure to solar radiation is not the same as variation in TSI.)

1. Look in locations where CN particles are rare or vary considerably in concentration. ie. over the oceans away from aerosol drift from land. There is not likely to be any observable effect when there is already CN particle competition.

2. Look where the molecules likely to be affected by CRs are (near the ocean surface? warmer waters? more turbulant waters? turbulant winds at ocean suface?).

3. Look for atmospheric drying. Two things happen when clouds form, water vapor is removed from the atmosphere from condensation (and heat is released) and less SW radiation would hit water on the surface, causing another delayed drying.

4. Look at albedo change. Where these clouds happen is as important as the extent. A small change in cloud cover over the ocean near mid-low latitudes can huge impact on the energy absorbed while a large change over land in high latitudes could have almost none.

Jim
Am not sure if its the same in Texas, but here in the UK we get high cloud during fine spells.
When warm moist air has been drawn up from the tropics and moves around a area of high pressure. The area of high pressure dry’s up the lower clouds but a fair bit of the high Cirrus remains.

As an example of the contribution GCR/atomic particle collisions that could contribute to CN formation, I would offer up this visible satellite loop showing the formation of a lower-level, daytime-heating cumulus over Texas with the hypothesis that if GCR et al are responsible for increased cloud formation (as opposed to having no effect whatsoever) that the effect would be a) increased areal extent and b) a slightly sooner (earlier) formation (on the time scale or seconds? minutes?)

So, we are talking marginal changes in the rate of CN creation, but, as anybody in business will tell you it can be small marginal differences that make or break the balance sheet.

Steven Mosher says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:42 amEspecially when there is no evidence that they do increase low level cloud formation.
and in addition the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link as I pointed out up-thread.

milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:54 amActually there is abundant evidence that cosmic rays increase clouds & do affect temperature
If so, there would be abundant evidence for a clear solar cycle variation in temperature and there is not [beyond the 0.1C expected from variation in TSI].

milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:22 amThis Serbian study did find a statistically significant delta T:
Based on a few events. And the FDs selected in their study are rare [less than one per year] so have no influence on the climate.http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf ““In this paper we have examined the evidence of a CR-cloud relationship from direct and indirect observations of cloud recorded from satellite- and ground-based measurement techniques. Overall, the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link”

aaron says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:35 amNot necessarily, changes in latent heat and ocean heat content could mask a signal
If so, there will be no correlation between cosmic rays and temperature as the variations are ‘masked’, so there goes the observational ‘evidence’.

All valid comments as per that study, however it & others with similar findings IMO mean that it’s wrong to say there exists no evidence of the effect. Surely there is some, IMO at least as compelling as the studies finding none.

Leif once again does not get it ,when it comes to solar/climate correlations. He is stuck on the fact that any changes in solar activity must correlate to those items some say are correlated with the sun, when in reality that just is not the case.

He does not understand that thresholds have to be reached through a degree of magnitude change and duration of time change in solar conditions in order to translate to a high degree of solar/climate correlation, or for that matter any correlation at all. Infact at times of steady 11 year solar rhythmic cycles which has been the case from post Dalton-2005 anti correlations can and will occur.

This is where so many get fooled into thinking their are no correlations. Yes there are correlations indeed but the solar activity change has to be signifcant enough to off set the random chaotic climate happenings of earth which also influence the various items, many feel have a solar /climate connection.

milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:39 amSurely there is some, IMO at least as compelling as the studies finding none.
‘Surely’? Sounds like the word of a believer. The way ir often goes in science is that there seems to be a correlation, then when more data becomes available, the correlation becomes weaker or simply goes away. This is what seems to happening here. The going-away of the belief is always lagging the going-away of the effect, as you demonstrate.

If this prolonged solar minimum lives up to it’s potential then you will see correlations, but right now we are in moderate solar activity.
For example the latest OULU cosmic ray count is 6145/minute ,which is to low to have a significant cause and effect. I estimate we need a cosmic ray count upwards of 6600/min. (sustained)in order to show a significant cosmic ray/cloud cover correlation.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:42 amany changes in solar activity must correlate to those items some say are correlated with the sun, when in reality that just is not the case
Tell that to Svensmark, who claims that there is a nice one-to-one correlation…

I used the term “surely” advisedly, based upon the fact that credible studies come down on both sides of the question. Likewise, I used “deny” advisedly, since asserting that there is no evidence of the effect is to deny the reality of scientific studies with at least as much cogency as those upon which you rely.

My use of the term may have implied belief or blind faith to you, but that’s not how I meant it. You apparently give more credence to studies which support your view, while denying the validity of those which don’t. I do the same, in reverse, based upon the shenanigans I’ve observed on the part of other Team members.

But can we agree that there is not “no evidence” for a GCR-cloud-temperature link, however unconvincing you may find it?

Leif ,again thresholds have to be considered,lag times have to be considered, sustainability has to be considered,the pastsolar action has to be considered, earthly random events have to be considered which may oppose solar influences, and the solar changes themselves have to be considered before you can judge if the correlation is or is not present.
You wrongly assume much to much based on your limited data.

I will say it one more time correlations are not simply something happens to( a) causes something to happen to( b) when it comes to the climate.

The climate in non linear, with thresholds, which make correlations difficult in the lack of extreme events , such a a very large volcanic eruption versus a small one.

Leif would conclude if a small volcanic eruption happend there would be no cause and effect on the climate from volcanic eruptions, not knowing if the volcanic eruption is large enough thresholds will come about which will indeed influence the climate.

This analogy with volcanic action in the above works with the sun, where a weak volcanic eruption equates to a steady 11 year rhythmic sunspot cycle,(no effects or correlations) while a large volcanic eruption equates to a very long prolonged solar minimum(many effects and correlations.)

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:50 amI estimate we need a cosmic ray count upwards of 6600/min. (sustained)in order to show a significant cosmic ray/cloud cover correlation.
For the 1793 days since 1964 [when Oulu began measuring] there have been exactly 8 days before the year 2007 where the count has been [barely] above 6600/min, so the correlations claimed by so many must all be spurious according to you. I can agree with that.

milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:56 amYou apparently give more credence to studies which support your view, while denying the validity of those which don’t. I do the same, in reverse, based upon the shenanigans I’ve observed on the part of other Team members.
I give more credence to recent papers examining the latest data. And I do that based on the science, not like you on your perception of how people behave.

But can we agree that there is not “no evidence” for a GCR-cloud-temperature link, however unconvincing you may find it?
The careful review paper I linked to concludes “the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link” On basis of what can I disagree with that assessment?

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:58 amYou wrongly assume much to much based on your limited data.
I should say very limited data over a very limited time frame.
You mean that Svensmark assumes too much based on the limited data. I can agree with that.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2013 at 12:09 pmI will say it one more time correlations are not simply something happens to( a) causes something to happen to( b) when it comes to the climate.
I will say one more time that you should tell Svensmark that. That you think he does not know what he is talking about.

Again this analogy , what Leif concludes is if volcanic eruptions were all very small, his data would show no correlations with the climate therefore he would wrongly conclude all volcanic eruptions would have no correlatoins with the climate.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2013 at 12:30 pmAgain this analogy , what Leif concludes is if volcanic eruptions were all very small, his data would show no correlations with the climate therefore he would wrongly conclude all volcanic eruptions would have no correlations with the climate.
If, indeed, they were all very small, they would not have any significant influence on the climate. Good that you have seen the light. But since you are not bringing anything worthwhile to the table, perhaps we have heard your opinion enough for now, what do you think?

Do you really believe that past anti-scientific behavior of Team members doesn’t matter at all? Such concern is amply justified by past fraudulent activity, IMO.

Should I not entertain doubts about papers relying upon GIGO climate models, as in part does Laken, et al 2012?

The good Dr. is young & appears more committed to actual science than many established Team members, however he relies upon the Hadley Centre atmosphere-only general circulation model to conduct “experiments”.

He is more circumspect about denigrating studies finding an effect than you are, so his entire abstract bears posting, not just its conclusion cited by you:

“Despite over 35 years of constant satellite-based measurements of cloud, reliable evidence of a long-hypothesized link between
changes in solar activity and Earth’s cloud cover remains elusive. This work examines evidence of a cosmic ray cloud link from
a range of sources, including satellite-based cloud measurements and long-term ground-based climatological measurements. The
satellite-based studies can be divided into two categories: (1) monthly to decadal timescale analysis and (2) daily timescale epoch superpositional
(composite) analysis. The latter analyses frequently focus on sudden high-magnitude reductions in the cosmic ray
flux known as Forbush Decrease events. At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP
and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long
or short timescales. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the
1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends. It is possible
that the satellite cloud datasets and analysis methods may simply be too insensitive to detect a small solar signal. Evidence from
ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional
scales, involving mechanisms related to the global electric circuit. However, a poor understanding of these mechanisms and their
effects on cloud makes the net impacts of such links uncertain. Regardless of this, it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a
widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.”

So even in his estimation & that of his co-authors, there is evidence, if not robust, of a less than widespread link. And his survey conclusion is hardly dispositive.

The scientific attitude would thus not be IMO to assert that no evidence exists. Laken cites examples of more evidence in his personal link above.

ABSTRACT: In order to monitor and attribute secular changes from outgoing spectral radiances, spectral fingerprints need to be constructed first. Large-scale model outputs are usually used to derive such spectral fingerprints. Different models make different assumptions on vertical overlapping of subgrid clouds. We explore the extent to which the spectral fingerprints constructed under different cloud vertical overlapping assumptions can affect such spectral fingerprinting studies. Utilizing a principal component-based radiative transfer model with high computational efficiency, we build an OSSE (Observing System Simulation Experiment) with full treatment of subgrid cloud variability to study this issue. We first show that the OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) computed from this OSSE is consistent with the OLR directly output from the parent large-scale models. We then examine the differences in spectral fingerprints due to cloud overlapping assumptions alone. Different cloud overlapping assumptions have little effect on the spectral fingerprints of temperature and humidity. However, the amplitude of the spectral fingerprints due to the same amount of cloud fraction change can differ as much as a factor of two between maximum random versus random overlap assumptions, especially for middle and low clouds. We further examine the impact of cloud overlapping assumptions on the results of linear regression of spectral differences with respect to predefined spectral fingerprints. Cloud-relevant regression coefficients are affected more by different cloud overlapping assumptions than regression coefficients of other geophysical variables. These findings highlight the challenges in constructing realistic longwave spectral fingerprints and in detecting climate change using all-sky observations.

I’ve been told that “Anyone who eats tomatoes is going to die“.
Since I can’t disproved this statement (or disprove that anyone is going to die, eventually, no matter), I continue to eat tomatoes.
I guess this makes me a “denier” of sorts.

That said, I thought all the “science was settled.”
At least, we now know that all the grant money isn’t wasted.

Well I don’t see how you can observe “cloud feedback” by making measurements in outer space, from a satellite.

That’s like a trying to figure out how many people died on planet earth in 2012, by counting every person on earth at midnight on new year’s eve, and then figuring how many were missing from the 2011 year count.

Cloud feedback upset the energy “balance” on earth, by varying the mount of solar energy that reaches the earth surface, and gets absorbed. You have to have sensors on the ground to measure that, if you want to know how cloud cover variations affect the result.

Feedback systems (earth) control their behavior (earth climate/weather) by using the output (climate/weather) to modify the INPUT (Solar Energy).

By your several critical comments on this thread on Svensmark’s research in this paper (and perhaps also in his previous papers) is your position any of the following:

1) is your position that if you were a peer reviewer of this (or perhaps his other published papers) then you would have strongly recommended to the journal editor against accepting it as is?

and / or

2) is your position that if you were the journal editor you would not have agreed initially to the paper’s submission ‘as it currently is’ prior to the start of the review / acceptance process?

and / or

3) is your position that if you were an IPCC lead author or contributing author (etc) then you would assess that the Svensmark research paper(s) does not have scientific merit / significance for inclusion in one of their ARs?

and / or

4) is your position that if you were on a climate science research grant funding board then you would have voted to reject Svensmark’s application for a grant for this whole line of research?

and / or

5) is your position different than any of the above?

However, whatever your responses to the above questions, I think this is an open venue on scientific work and you are vigorously and healthily engaged in a normal scientifically skeptical dialog; that your commentary has the potential to give Svensmark invaluable feedback. You have given him an oppportunity to directly or indirectly address your comments. We all benefit.

I too value the comments of experts & advocates in relevant fields. However Dr. Svalgaard & Mr. Mosher IMO overstate their case in asserting that there is no actual observational evidence from the real world that GCRs increase low tropospheric cloudiness & hence temperature. As I stated above, such evidence is abundant, however unconvincing they may find it.

In addition to the studies cited above since 2008, there is Scherer, et al from 2006/7 (summary of climatic conclusions from page 104 of the .PDF, Part VII, Section 15:

The authors marshal the evidence then in the literature showing a connection between GCRs, clouds, temperature & climate on timescales from billions of years to subdecadal. Comments in this post have so far concentrated on the short-term phenomenon of Forbush Decline events.

While cosmoclimatology is yet in its infancy, it is IMO better supported than the dogma that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of climate change.

I’ve been told that “Anyone who eats tomatoes is going to die“.
Since I can’t disproved this statement (or disprove that anyone is going to die, eventually, no matter), I continue to eat tomatoes.
I guess this makes me a “denier” of sorts.

Start with the set “People who are alive”. It is automatically implicit that the only people who are capable of eating tomatoes are living people.

It is trivial to show equivalence with “People who will die”.

A subset of “People who will die” is “People who ate tomatoes”.

As “People who ate tomatoes” is a subset of “People who will die”, and “People who will die” is equivalent to “People who are alive”, then “People who ate tomatoes” is a subset of “People who are alive”.

Thus it is shown that people who are alive who eat tomatoes are people who will die.

The statement has been proven.

Note that “People who did not eat tomatoes” is still part of “People who will die”, thus whether tomatoes were or were not eaten has no effect on membership in that set. Either way, if you are a person who is alive then you are a person who will die.

Congratulations, you are not denying. I hope you find this to be cheering news.

Excerpt: Research involving supercooled water encompasses many fields of science and atmospheric research comprises a large fraction of these works (DeMott 1990, 1995). Ice formation in the atmosphere affects rainfall and snowfall as well as the level of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface and so is very topical of late (Sastry 2005, Hegg and Baker 2009). In clouds, supercooled water droplets are thought to sometimes freeze homogeneously through the organization of water molecules into an ice lattice without the need for any external seeding agent (Tabazadeh et al. 2002, Ansmann et al. 2005).

Classical Nucleation Theory (tutorial pt 1) (N.B.: Dry Lecture)

.

For those more impressed by video capture of a subject rather than ‘dry lecture’, try:

Considering the errors in your claims below, I’d say you are undoubtedly an accurate judge of the level of your own expertise.

But for the record, Piers Corbyn does not endorse Svendmarks theory of cosmic rays controlling climate.
Corbyn has said its only the Sun/Earth/Moon magnetic connection that controls weather and climate.
Anthony I wish you would further examine Corbyns forecasts.
They are very specific.IMO too specific as he could have a better track record if he fudged dates more.

Specific? That’s daft. They are as far from specific as it is possible to be.

Im amazed by what he accomplishes.(Although I havent properly audited his entire forecasts.Nor has this site)

His “entire forecasts” are very difficult to audit, because he doesn’t publish them. Or to be more precise, he publishes only the successful parts of them.

Whats impressive is his prediction of specific extreme weather events.

If I predict fifty vague things for tomorrow, some of them will be sure to come true … perhaps that impresses you.

Here’s someone else who is clear that Piers’ forecasts are just vague handwaving.

Here’s another view:

Looking again at the ‘audit’ this is the sort of thing I find disturbing:

Forecast:

“Around 28-30 July
(action but NOT named storms)
Pacific active Tropical depressions likely
but only 50% risk of developing into Typhoons”

This was then confirmed and the forecast outcome labelled as a success.

“Confirmed – No named typhoons or
TS formed in this window”

However there was a 50% risk stated of typhoon development, so presumably if a typhoon had formed that too would have been a ‘success’.

I offered publicly to bet with Piers on his forecast for the opening of the Olympics if he would specify his forecast exactly. He declined … and very wisely so, since even his vague, handwaving forecast turned out to be wrong.

So I agree, MojoMojo. As you say, you are no expert on Piers Corbyn … but some of us here are. He has been tested. He’s failed. Next contestant, please.

milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 1:21 pm“Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the 1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends. It is possible that the satellite cloud datasets and analysis methods may simply be too insensitive to detect a small solar signal. Evidence from ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional scales…” So even in his estimation & that of his co-authors, there is evidence, if not robust, of a less than widespread link. The scientific attitude would thus not be IMO to assert that no evidence exists.

The issue is not whether, as Laken holds possible, that there is evidence or not for small insignificant effects, but whether there is evidence that CGRs are a major driver of climate. And there is no good evidence for that, robust or not.

milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 1:32 pm“These findings highlight the challenges in constructing realistic longwave spectral fingerprints and in detecting climate change using all-sky observations.”
Admitting how hard it is to establish the influence on climate and hence why the correlations are poor. If the correlations are poor they can not be taken as evidence.

John Whitman says:
September 5, 2013 at 2:49 pm
1) is your position that if you were a peer reviewer of this (or perhaps his other published papers) then you would have strongly recommended to the journal editor against accepting it as is?
No, as the paper is only about converting H2O and SO2 to H2SO4

3) is your position that if you were an IPCC lead author or contributing author (etc) then you would assess that the Svensmark research paper(s) does not have scientific merit / significance for inclusion in one of their ARs?
See answer to 1)

4) is your position that if you were on a climate science research grant funding board then you would have voted to reject Svensmark’s application for a grant for this whole line of research?
Since the paper is not about climate, how could we?

You have given him an opportunity to directly or indirectly address your comments. We all benefit.
Since the paper is about H2SO4 etc…

milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 3:21 pmWhile cosmoclimatology is yet in its infancy, it is IMO better supported than the dogma that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of climate change.
A field has to stand on its own demerits rather than that of another one’s. The case for cosmoclimatology is extremely weak: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1303-7314-Cosmic-Rays-Climate-billion-yrs.pdf

Useful distinction of major driver of climate.
_____________________
milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 3:21 pm
While cosmoclimatology is yet in its infancy, it is IMO better supported than the dogma that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of climate change.
A field has to stand on its own demerits rather than that of another one’s. The case for cosmoclimatology is extremely weak: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1303-7314-Cosmic-Rays-Climate-billion-yrs.pdf
__________________________

Of course a field should stand on its own, & concur that the case for the longest timeframe is presently weak, although IMO better for orders of magnitude less than a billion years.

milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 5:02 pmUseful distinction of major driver of climate.
Yes, that is the crux of the matter. There is no doubt that the Sun has an influence on the climate though a variety of plausible vectors. As long as these influences are small [say of order 10% of total change] they are still of great academic interest, but they are not relevant for the current climate debate and are not something to make one hot under the collar.

You seem to be describing decreased HF propagation that correlates with diurnal periods of higher exposure to solar radiation.

Slightly more that half of the ionosphere is exposed to the Sun, slightly less than half is in the shadow of the Earth. When considering worldwide HF signal propagation, with the strength of the D layer of the ionosphere at the “spot” the signal is attempting to “bounce off” of related inversely to the possible usable propagation distance, it is apparent that more energetic solar emissions will decrease worldwide possible usable propagation distances.

Thus even though the effect is based on the Sun’s effect on the D layer, globally the effect goes beyond diurnal variation. In other words, on average more energetic solar emissions should yield shorter possible HF transmission distances based on the D layer effect.

If a quieter Sun does decrease HF propagation distance while a more active one increases it, as originally proposed, then other factors are acting against and overwhelming the contribution of the D layer effect.

————————-
Atmospheric aerosol formation is known to occur almost all over the world, and the importance of these particles to climate and air quality has been recognized. Although almost all of the processes driving aerosol formation take place below a particle diameter of 3 nanometers, observations cover only larger particles. We introduce an instrumental setup to measure atmospheric concentrations of both neutral and charged nanometer-sized clusters. By applying the instruments in the field, we come to three important conclusions: (i) A pool of numerous neutral clusters in the sub–3 nanometer size range is continuously present; (ii) the processes initiating atmospheric aerosol formation start from particle sizes of 1.5 nanometers; and (iii) neutral nucleation dominates over the ion-induced mechanism, at least in boreal forest conditions.
—————————–

——————————
First, they found that the number of small clusters (< 1.2 nm) was essentially constant over time with loss from evaporation and reaction balancing growth by accretion and reaction.

Second, growth up to about 1.9 nm occurs through reactions with sulfuric acid. Significant growth only occurred on days when sulfuric acid concentrations increases and was synchronous with it. On the other hand, theory shows that sulfuric acid/water aerosols are not stable by themselves requiring amines to stabilize and measurements with an atmospheric pressure inlet time of flight mass spectrometer showed that the intermediate aerosols did incorporate amines. This means that sulfuric acid from SOx oxidation can be rate limiting

Fourth, neutral clusters dominate as shown in the figure above and for all aerosol sizes. The purple line shows the relative numbers of neutral (purple), ionic( blue) and ions formed by recombination (red) aerosols. This is surprising and casts a different light on claims that cosmic ray ionization controls aerosol production.

Mr. Josh Halpern, this thread is virtually dead by current WUWT standards, we move quickly around here. Basically you’re trying to slip in a “last word” after practically all of the most knowledgeable commentators have moved on thus aren’t here to refute you. Strike one.

This is brand-new research, and your “refutation” is some old thing dredged up from your site that by the URL is from 2007, six years old. Clearly it does not specifically address the current work. Strike two.

Your last paragraph quoted from your site’s piece, references a figure and even the colors of “data” on the figure. You made no attempt to reword the quote for understanding without the figure, did not provide a link specifically to that image. Heck, it doesn’t look like you even read what you quoted and just splattered a scoop for your comment. To find reference for the quoted section, nothing can be done but seeing the ancient piece on your site, which seems to be your calculated intent.

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 5, 2013 at 4:41 pm
…
milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 3:21 pm
While cosmoclimatology is yet in its infancy, it is IMO better supported than the dogma that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of climate change.A field has to stand on its own demerits rather than that of another one’s. The case for cosmoclimatology is extremely weak: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1303-7314-Cosmic-Rays-Climate-billion-yrs.pdf

The paper Sloan and Wolfendale 2013 finds against Shaviv’s model due to mis-timing and too small difference between spiral arm and inner arm GCR flux – 20-30% as opposed to 300%. But the authors end the paper with a counter-proposal (speculation) – that ultra-high energy PeV particles might have a climate role, via some “electric” effect in the atmosphere. Apparently supernova remnants continue to emit PeV particles for a long time. Can you comment on this?

Steven Mosher says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:59 amlets see if we can focus people on the actual data.

As leif and I have tried to point out Svensmark theory is this.

More GCR = More clouds.

Now, he is investigating the mechanism, the chemistry. But before we look for an explanation of the effect ( more GCR = more clouds ) dont you think it makes sense to look
at the observations?

1. we have observations of GCR
2. We have observations of clouds

Is it true that when GCR increase that clouds increase? Well, go look at the data.
Answer? Nope. You cant find any clear change in clouds when GCR increase.

Now lets suppose that Svensmark discovers some new chemistry in the lab, and we have more support for the idea. you STILL have the problem of why this effect is not seen in the ‘wild”.

The theory is clear More GCR = More clouds.
That is testable today.
Go look at cloudiness versus GCR. and what do you find?
GCR and clouds are un correlated.

maybe the effect is small? maybe all the instruments are bad? maybe monkeys will fly out of your butts, but to date, the theory explains an effect that doesnt happen.

I agree fully with SM on this, one has to start with observation and then go to mechanistic explanation, not the other way around. Top down not bottom up (flying monkeys notwithstanding). This is a correct argument against reductionism. Advances in computation and analytical capability tempt the unwary into reductionism and it is always a road to nowhere.

But cell biologists / geneticists observed mechanisms of DNA damage and alteration at very low doses, and assumed these would have an effect e.g. cancer at the whole organism level (very usafe assumption – in defiance of organism level data). Therefore radiation protection practice around the world is based on the LNT (linear no threshold) hypothesis of radiation carcinogenesis which is false, based on failed reductionism and failed epistemology. LNT is the fiction that allows claims of thousands/millions of dead from radioactivity releases when the real number is usually a handful or zero.

Cloud effects don’t cause ice ages, so aren’t posited as an alternative to Milankovitch cycles. They theoretically can & probably do however affect the smaller cycles within both glacial & interglacial phases during icehouse climates & similarly during hothouses.
***

Even if it’s possible (posts above suggest it isn’t), I’m interested in the major climate players, not “plausible” bit-players. Movement thru the galactic plane are multi-million-yr-long effects, while Milankovitch cycle history suggests we could be near the end of this interglacial right now.

1) is your position that if you were a peer reviewer of this (or perhaps his other published papers) then you would have strongly recommended to the journal editor against accepting it as is?

Leif responded,

“No, as the paper is only about converting H2O and SO2 to H2SO4”

3) is your position that if you were an IPCC lead author or contributing author (etc) then you would assess that the Svensmark research paper(s) does not have scientific merit / significance for inclusion in one of their ARs?

Leif responded,

“See answer to 1)”

4) is your position that if you were on a climate science research grant funding board then you would have voted to reject Svensmark’s application for a grant for this whole line of research?

Leif responded,

“Since the paper is not about climate, how could we?”

– – – – – – – – –

Leif,

Don’t you think funding for Svenmark’s research is somehow categorized in association with the idea of contributing to the understanding of the climate system? I do.

Personal note => See the following youtube for some levity. These are images that sometimes come to my mind when Q & A makes an avrupt & unanticipated (at least on my part) left turn.

“. . . I knew I should have taken that left turn in Albuquerque . . .”

John Whitman says:
September 6, 2013 at 6:28 am“Since the paper is not about climate, how could we?”
Don’t you think funding for Svenmark’s research is somehow categorized in association with the idea of contributing to the understanding of the climate system? I do.
You asked for my opinion…

phlogiston says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:24 amsupernova remnants continue to emit PeV particles for a long time. Can you comment on this?
As you say ‘speculation’, but there is little doubt that a supernova explosion next door would have some undesirable effect.

Good thing I turned off the computer when I did last night. Another summer monsoonal electrical storm promptly arrived from the south in NE Oregon, with high winds, torrential rains, copious lightning & thunder. It should be the last of the season. It was not unprecedented in my experience, but the frequency this year might be so at least since the late ’60s & early ’70s, thanks to regional if not global cooling.

I’ve now read Sloan & Wolfendale. Thanks again.

They make a strong case, although I’d like to read Shaviv’s response as well. I note that in conclusion the authors offer an alternative hypothesis for an astronomical effect on terrestrial climate of lower-energy galactic cosmic “rays”:

“An explanation of the reason for the initiation of the Ice Age epochs of the past 10^9 years
remains to be found. Such initiation may possibly have an astronomical cause by way of the
effect of GCR of PeV energies on the electrical conditions of the atmosphere. The periods of
increase here are of order 20 ka occurring everyMa or so. The 20 ka period arises from the rapid
diffusion of the PeV particles which are deemed responsible. The fact referred to by Erlykin
and Wolfendale (2001) is that proximity to Supernova remnants in the Solar System’s passage
through the Galaxy causes increases by several orders of magnitude in the intensity of terrestrial
GCRs at PeV energies (as distinct from a few percent in the GeV energy range). This might
have relevance, the multiplying factor coming by way of effects on the electrical conditions of
the atmosphere.”

A burst of actual rays (gamma) have been suggested as a cause of the Ordovician-Silurian Mass Extinction Event, which as you may know coincided with a fairly brief but intense glaciation.

To return to my point about your reliance on Laken’s conclusion, the paper cited by Anth_ny today might reinforce questions about the validity of his doubts, based as they are upon the Hadley Centre’s climate model. I don’t know if the objections the cited paper raise apply to that model or not, but suspect they do:

In sum, I feel that it’s premature to claim that there exists no evidence supporting a solar magnetism-modulated GCR effect, even a major one, on climate, on at least some time scales. Increasingly, experimental results are showing how such an effect might work. The proper scientific approach would IMO be to await further observation & analysis, preferably with minimal reliance upon modeling, before ruling the hypothesis defunct out of hand.

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 8:19 amThe proper scientific approach would IMO be to await further observation & analysis, preferably with minimal reliance upon modeling, before ruling the hypothesis defunct out of hand.
My point is that that works both ways, i.e. also before accepting the hypothesis as confirmed.

I didn’t say it was confirmed, only that there was abundant evidence for it. I feel it’s not justified to claim that no evidence exists from the natural world (as opposed to mounting laboratory observations). IMO Svensmark’s hypothesis hasn’t been either confirmed or falsified. The trend appears to be towards confirmation, however, based upon experimental findings & field observations which have been both supportive & found dubious (as in Laken, whose conclusions are IMO questionable, based upon reliance on problematic models).

Erratum Correction: “A burst of actual rays (gamma) has been suggested as a cause of the Ordovician-Silurian Mass Extinction Event, which as you may know coincided with a fairly brief but intense glaciation” is correct. I added the burst after writing the rest of the sentence & neglected to change the verb from have to has.

IMO the glaciation & associated terrestrial changes suffice to explain the extinctions, without appeal to the heavens. Note that the glaciation began during a period with CO2 concentrations in the thousands of ppmv.

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 9:17 amI didn’t say it was confirmed, only that there was abundant evidence for it.
But that is the point: there is not abundant evidence for it. The correlations on which the hypothesis was built have failed to hold up. So the early ‘evidence’ is no longer evidence, no matter how abundant. As Einstein said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”.

“It was found that there was a definite critical value for the expansion ratio
(v2/v1= 1.25) corresponding to an approximately fourfold supersaturation.
In moist air which had been freed from Aitken’s nuclei by repeatedly form-
ing a cloud and allowing the drops to settle, no drops were formed unless the
expansion exceeded this limit, while if it were exceeded, a shower of drops
was seen to fall.”

Introduction of nuclei reduced this supersaturation requirement. So it works, but, as Steve Mosher says “..effect is small”

Pamela Gray (Pamela Gray says:
September 5, 2013 at 7:28 am) made the considerable point that there is no shortage of nuclei from a variety of sources already in the atmosphere and that cloud formation is a big item. GCR may already be “too late” to the party. There is no doubt it works (Wilson’s and Svensmark’s experiments attest to that) but at most it would be marginal. BTW, Wilson’s Nobel lecture is a peach and the demonstration of the scientific method worth a review by many. The apparati are beautiful.

The authors found the anomalous result that recent high GCR flux coincided with low levels of cloudiness, as measured by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. But the issue remains unresolved for various good reasons.

Abstract (from paper as published):

An updated assessment has been made of the proposed hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are positively correlated with lower-troposphere global cloudiness. A brief review of the many conflicting studies that attempt to prove or disprove this hypothesis is also presented. It has been determined in this assessment that the recent extended quiet period between solar cycles 23 and 24 has led to a record-high level of GCRs, which in turn has been accompanied by a record-low level of lower-troposphere global cloudiness. This represents a possible observational disconnect, and the update presented here continues to support the need for further research on the GCR–cloud hypothesis and its possible role in the science of climate change.

From the Conclusion (from preview made available to Dr. Curry by Dr. Agee):

Several studies, as referenced here, have continued to promote the controversial cosmic ray-cloud connection hypothesis, both from the standpoint of errors in data analysis as well as scientific links that establish GCR-CCN as a viable contributor to climate change. It is also important to note (see Carslaw et al. 2002) that there are two mechanisms by which cosmic rays may affect cloud droplet number concentrations or ice particles: a) Ion-aerosol clear-air mechanism, and b) Ion-aerosol near-cloud mechanism. Recent attempts have also been made to further resolve the GCR-CCN controversy by examining the global cloudiness response to very short-term solar variations (namely Forbush Decreases that are approximately of one-week duration). Calogovic et al. (2010) have found no response in global cloud cover to Forbush Decreases at any altitude and latitude. Svensmark et al. (2009), however, have shown that Forbush decreases associated with CME passage results in lower troposphere clouds containing less liquid water. Their results, in general, show global scale influences of solar variability on both cloudiness and aerosols. The work by Harrison and Ambaum (2010) also shows a positive relationship between cloudiness and large GCR changes associated with Forbush decreases (as observed at Shetland, England). Laken and Kniveton (2011) on the other hand, found no evidence of any relationship between liquid cloud fraction and GCRs.

It is concluded that the observational results presented, showing several years of disconnect between GCRs and lower troposphere global cloudiness, add additional concern to the cosmic ray-cloud connection hypothesis. In fact, this has been done in the most dramatic way with the measurement of record high levels of GCRs during the deep, extended quiet period of cycle 23-24, which is accompanied by record low levels of lower troposphere global cloudiness. Research on the GCR-cloud correlations must continue, particularly in view of the two physical mechanisms mentioned above (as well as the uncertainty in the reliability of the ISCCP lower troposphere cloudiness to show the proposed correlations). Finally, it is clearly known that other factors can affect mean global cloudiness besides solar variability, due to internal forcing mechanisms on different time scales (such as ENSO).

If a quieter Sun does decrease HF propagation distance while a more active one increases it, as originally proposed, then other factors are acting against and overwhelming the contribution of the D layer effect.

This does not seem inconsistent with, or “the reverse of”, what Fred Berple claimed. TSI is not a measure of all solar activity. In fact, it seems as if other types of solar activity vary much more than TSI. This supports Ferd Berple’s claim.

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:01 amit is clearly known that other factors can affect mean global cloudiness besides solar variability, due to internal forcing mechanisms on different time scales (such as ENSO).
Which is my point: the Sun is not the primary driver overpowering everything else. I’m reminded of some believers’ reaction when spoon-bender Uri Geller was caught cheating: “so what? perhaps he was cheating on those occasions, but all the other times it was the genuine article”

wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:15 amTSI is not a measure of all solar activity. In fact, it seems as if other types of solar activity vary much more than TSI.
TSI is where the energy is. But, you are of course correct, the amount of loose change in Bill Gates’ pockets also varies a lot, but is hardly a good measure of his wealth. Cosmic rays of the energy need to get to the lower atmosphere vary very little [a couple of percent] over the solar cycle.

But, you are of course correct, the amount of loose change in Bill Gates’ pockets also varies a lot, but is hardly a good measure of his wealth. Cosmic rays of the energy need to get to the lower atmosphere vary very little [a couple of percent] over the solar cycle.

Well, if I’m trying to predict the jingling sound emanating from Bill Gates’ pants, then I should be looking at the variation in the amount of loose change in Bill Gates’ pockets. I shouldn’t be concerned about the variation of his wealth. I think that was Fred Berple’s point.

wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:34 am“TSI is where the energy is.”
This fact isn’t material to the point.
Under the assumption that Ferd’s point was climate related, the energy is material. The HF and sunspot variations being just proxies for the variations of solar output. If Ferd’s comment was just some OT throw-away, you are correct.

I’m the opposite of a believer. I’m a doubter, except of the fact that the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is the prime driver of climate on earth has repeatedly been falsified.

I have nothing invested in the GCR-cloud-T hypothesis as an alternative. I’m OK with there being no primary driver of terrestrial climate on any time scale, or that of other planets in the solar system.

However I also haven’t seen enough evidence against Svensmark, Shaviv, et al to consider their hypothesis falsified on any time scale. You don’t see much correlation with sunspots & cosmogenic isotopes & astronomical-climatic phenomena such as the Maunder Minimum & the LIA, but I’m not so certain.

To me the situation is the reverse of evolution before Darwin & Wallace & continental drift before the discovery of seafloor spreading. In those case, there were valid observations which lacked convincing explanation. Svensmark has increasingly convincing experimental explanation of the GCR-cloud connection, but so far lacks compelling observation for its action in the atmosphere. Also lacking, as you note, is support for a major role in climate fluctuations for solar magnetism-modulated, GCR-influenced CCNs.

IMO climate science should be looking for genuine causes of change on all time scales rather than wasting time & resources on “communicating” a blatant falsehood. Milankovitch orbital mechanisms explain well fluctuations on the order of magnitude of a hundred thousand years in the glacial climate of the past three million years or so, but comparably good explanations are still wanting for longer & shorter time frames.

LEIF, you are wrong the sun is the primary force behind the driver of climate, but it is the change in magnetic activity more so then the change in TSI

Again you will not accept data that shows a clear connection between low solar activity on a prolonged basis and the climate that resulted during both the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum

Secondly you do not understand that in order to have a solar/climate connection show up the solar conditions have to vary by a certain degree of magnitude over a certain duration of time, anything short of that WILL NOT BE ENOUGH ,to show a solar /climate connection.

This is why it is hard to show solar/climate connections since the end of the Dalton , to very recently.

However the sun has gone into a prolonged solar minimum state which is turing out much WEAKER then the conventional forecast thus far ,and IS going to have an impact on the climate going forward if the prolonged solar minimum reaches the many solar parameters I have talked about.

These solar values folowing several years of sub solar activity in general which we have had since year 2005.

Leif when and only IF these values are attained and the climate does NOT respond will you be able to say you ae rcorrect about the solar climate connection, until then you are just GUESSING, and have no clear picture on how much or little the solar/climate connection might be once those solar parameters I mentioned become established.You can not PROVE ME WRONG.

So it is a wait and see game, and you can bring up all the arguments you want to show the lack of solar/climate connections with your data mainly 1844-present which has no prolonged solar minimum periods in it with the parameters I have metioned on a sustained basis, to back up your arguments.

ZeroFive is located in the United States and specializes in multi-band vertical antennas and much more.

Updated 09/06/2013 @ 11:35 UTC
Solar Update
Welcome to Friday. Below is an updated image of this visible solar disk. Solar activity is very low this morning and could potentially stay this way heading into the weekend. We are down to three visible regions, each of which are not a threat for strong solar flares. Regions 1834 and 1835 are both now located behind the west limb. The entire middle portion of the visible disk is void of sunspots. Hard to believe this was predicted to be solar maximum during Solar Cycle 24. When will the next rise in activity take place? Stay tuned to SolarHam.com to find out.

Earth & Sun will be running an experiment for us over the coming solar cycles. I hope that improved methods of cloud observation will enable science to come to a firmer conclusion in a decade or two, but even then the issue might not be “settled”, as indeed it ought not be.

“Which is my point: the Sun is not the primary driver overpowering everything else. ”

It can still be the primary driver modulated by everything else.

Everything else can itself be complex such that the solar signal is often out of phase with the climate response so that it only becomes apparent on longer time scales except when the solar change is exceptionally large and rapid.

I am hoping that the collapse in solar activity from cycle 23 onwards will be deep enough and sustained enough for the climate response to be apparent on a short time scale despite the modulating effects of everything else.

So far it has been enough to cause a stall in warming plus reversals of certain other trends which I have referred to previously.

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:48 amHowever I also haven’t seen enough evidence against Svensmark, Shaviv, et al to consider their hypothesis falsified on any time scale.
The shoe is on the other foot. S&S and you have to show that the hypothesis is supported [the ‘any time scale’ is too general – but typical – how about microseconds?]

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:49 amYou can not PROVE ME WRONG.
If you cannot be proven wrong, what you do is not science.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:54 amThe entire middle portion of the visible disk is void of sunspots. Hard to believe this was predicted to be solar maximum during Solar Cycle 24.
Just show someone’s ignorance about what solar cycles behave. The similar cycle 14 had many days with zero sunspots throughout the maximum http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png [yellow curve]

To the contrary you make the data fit the way you want it to be, not what it actually shows,(Maunder Minimum/Dalton Minimum) but if my solar parameters are reached going forward this time you will not be able to do that, and will have to deal with the reality of the solar/climate connection, or lack of it.

You’re right, I should have specified I meant scales down to years, or at least subdecadal, as in my prior comments. How is that typical, though, since I was specific before?

I have been pointing to evidence in support of the hypothesis, at length, despite your denial that any exists. Clearly the hypothesis isn’t either confirmed or falsified yet, but surely (as I said) is not entirely without evidence, as you believe.

March 1, 2013: Something unexpected is happening on the sun. 2013 is supposed to be the year of Solar Max, the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle. Yet 2013 has arrived and solar activity is relatively low. Sunspot numbers are well below their values in 2011, and strong solar flares have been infrequent for many months.

The quiet has led some observers to wonder if forecasters missed the mark. Solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center has a different explanation:

“This is solar maximum,” he suggests. “But it looks different from what we expected because it is double peaked.”

A new ScienceCast video explores the puzzling behavior of ongoing Solar Cycle 24. Play it
Conventional wisdom holds that solar activity swings back and forth like a simple pendulum. At one end of the cycle, there is a quiet time with few sunspots and flares. At the other end, Solar Max brings high sunspot numbers and solar storms. It’s a regular rhythm that repeats every 11 years.

Reality, however, is more complicated. Astronomers have been counting sunspots for centuries, and they have seen that the solar cycle is not perfectly regular. For one thing, the back-and-forth swing in sunspot counts can take anywhere from 10 to 13 years to complete; also, the amplitude of the cycle varies. Some solar maxima are very weak, others very strong.

Pesnell notes yet another complication: “The last two solar maxima, around 1989 and 2001, had not one but two peaks.” Solar activity went up, dipped, then resumed, performing a mini-cycle that lasted about two years.

The same thing could be happening now. Sunspot counts jumped in 2011, dipped in 2012, and Pesnell expects them to rebound again in 2013: “I am comfortable in saying that another peak will happen in 2013 and possibly last into 2014,” he predicts.

Another curiosity of the solar cycle is that the sun’s hemispheres do not always peak at the same time. In the current cycle, the south has been lagging behind the north. The second peak, if it occurs, will likely feature the southern hemisphere playing catch-up, with a surge in activity south of the sun’s equator.

Recent sunspot counts fall short of predictions. Credit: Dr. Tony Philips & NOAA/SWPC [full plot] Pesnell is a leading member of the NOAA/NASA Solar Cycle Prediction Panel, a blue-ribbon group of solar physicists who assembled in 2006 and 2008 to forecast the next Solar Max. At the time, the sun was experiencing its deepest minimum in nearly a hundred years. Sunspot numbers were pegged near zero and x-ray flare activity flat-lined for months at a time. Recognizing that deep minima are often followed by weak maxima, and pulling together many other threads of predictive evidence, the panel issued this statement:

“The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle (Cycle 24) will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May 2013. Note, this is not a unanimous decision, but a supermajority of the panel did agree.”

Given the tepid state of solar activity in Feb. 2013, a maximum in May now seems unlikely.

“We may be seeing what happens when you predict a single amplitude and the Sun responds with a double peak,” comments Pesnell.

Incidentally, Pesnell notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24, underway now, and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century. If the two cycles are in fact twins, “it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”

No one knows for sure what the sun will do next. It seems likely, though, that the end of 2013 could be a lot livelier than the beginning.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 11:24 amTo the contrary you make the data fit the way you want it to be, not what it actually shows
Nonsense, any revisions are made by a large group of sunspot observers…”
you will have to deal with the reality of the solar/climate connection, or lack of it.
I can deal with the lack, can you?

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 11:27 amStephen, you have to take into account Leif is mainly a solar scientist and not involved in climate as his area of study
Stephen is a lawyer…

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 11:30 amYou’re right, I should have specified I meant scales down to years, or at least subdecadal, as in my prior comments. How is that typical, though, since I was specific before?
Typical in the sense of looseness. You were also pushing Forbush decrease correlations which have a time scale of days, so how is one to know.

I have been pointing to evidence in support of the hypothesis, at length, despite your denial that any exists.
Evidence that is contradicted by other ‘evidence’ [or by failure to hold up with new data] is not longer ‘evidence’, but just claims of evidence, but, as I said, for some people, claims seem to be enough.

Leif’s methold is not the correct way to show a useful comparisome between solar cycle 14 and solar cycle 24.
The Layman sunspot count shows the true difference between the two sunspot cycles and counts sunspots in the exact same way, for each of the two cycles.

The modern way of counting sunspots is essentially of no use. It is ridiculous.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 11:41 amPesnell is a leading member of the NOAA/NASA Solar Cycle Prediction Panel
Well, I’m a member too and at my urging, the panel revised their prediction down [not enough IMO, but it is hard to win all battles].

Pesnell notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24, underway now, and Solar Cycle 14,
He disagrees with your unsubstantiated claim that SC24 is not like SC14.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:49 am
“The solar conditions have to vary by a certain degree of magnitude over a certain duration of time, anything short of that WILL NOT BE ENOUGH ,to show a solar /climate connection.”

I’m not particularly in disagreement on the bigger picture, insofar as your threshold conditions would be an example of when effects would extra show up in the midst of weather. However, correlations are still rather blatant even without that, if looking at the right rarely-seen data. For example, about 100% of sea level history coverage is dishonest and/or misleading by never plotting the derivative, but that is what makes correlation blatant, as illustrated in the following along with other strong correlations (like with humidity at altitude, clouds, and even temperature in non-fudged or less-fudged data): http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif (enlarges upon further click)

An unfortunate aspect of an image buried in a text link is how typically only a tiny couple percent or so of readers will actually click and look (as I used to observe on another site using hit counters). But, if you think it is just presenting what you have already seen, you are mistaken (no offense) … for you wouldn’t be thinking correlations weren’t visible short of those thresholds if you had. Aside from the references in the image, I could, on request, provide any as easily clickable text links if there is any doubt on anything.

In the big picture, of cosmic rays having an effect, we’re already in agreement. Also I think you are honest (unlike the extreme postcount CAGW-movement propagandists I’ve encountered on multiple websites and on their Wikipedia team), and what your name links to, climatedepot.com, is a great site. Just what is in the image link is rather important to see as well.

Stephen, you have to take into account Leif is mainly a solar scientist and not involved in climate as his area of study,and that accounts for why he reaches so many wrong or different conclusions.
——————-

This would apply to many commentators here, & sounds a lot like the attempts of “climate scientists” to denigrate skeptics with backgrounds in other disciplines. If Leif, a prominent solar scientist, is disqualified, then so am I, with degrees in biology & history.

I feel that this path leads to questioning “funding” & other ad hominems rather than responding based upon specific statements regarding science, evidence & analysis thereof.

LEIF ‘S contributions I welcome , but it is his insistence of him being so sure he is correct while all of us with a different opinion do not know what we are talking about, which makes me challenge him more then I would otherwise.
It is fascinating.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 11:50 amThe Layman sunspot count shows the true difference between the two sunspot cycles and counts sunspots in the exact same way, for each of the two cycles.
Nonsense. The LSC is junk and BTW tries to [but fails] to count as Wolf did before he died in 1893.

Stephen Wilde says:
September 6, 2013 at 11:50 amLeif is a solar scientist, but not into weather and climate at all as far as I know.
I was one of the scientists who revived the Sun-Weather-Climate connection back in the 1970s. Consult http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf . [see page vii and several references throughout the book – at the time I was considered an expert on this by my peers] I have published many papers on this, e.g. see http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=qFdb2fIAAAAJ One of my most cited papers on this was co-written with the founder of NCAR [if you know what that is].

Sometimes some of us don’t, including myself, which is how I learn things. Sometimes he’s wrong, too, when venturing outside his area of expertise. However I’m glad that he, RGB & the other distinguished, practicing scientists who do comment here, unlike too many of their cowed or cowardly colleagues, are willing, able & brave enough to do so.

There is no shortage of cocksure CACA skeptics, too, which combo should be oxymoronic, if not just plain moronic.

Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Svensmark’s theory of cloud formation and the Earth’s heating and cooling has been my preferred explanation for the Earth’s large-scale warming and cooling, and now it looks like its picked up some significant experimental backing. If this holds up, it’s a huge blow to the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:07 pmSometimes he’s wrong, too, when venturing outside his area of expertise.
Sun-Weather-Climate is firmly within my field of expertise, as least so think [thought] my peers:
I was one of the scientists who revived the Sun-Weather-Climate connection back in the 1970s. Consult http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf . [see page vii and several references throughout the book – at the time I was considered an expert on this by my peers] I have published many papers on this, e.g. see http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=qFdb2fIAAAAJ One of my most cited papers on this was co-written with the founder of NCAR [if you know what that is].

The optimism we all had back then 40 years ago has since been doused by the failure of any and all of the avenues of research that we then thought promising to pan out. The field that we revived has pretty much died again by now; a fate the field has suffered before and will suffer again: a good example is http://www.leif.org/EOS/grl50846-Herschel.pdf

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:13 pmAs previously noted here, you were indeed a collaborator with the late, great Eddy in the ’70s, even if you came to disagree with his conclusions
As he himself eventually did. You see, when new data become available, many hypothesis die. The believers usually carry on, as Winston churchill once remarked: “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened”.

I know you’re a qualified expert in this field. The errors I had in mind were in comments outside the sun’s effect on climate or lack thereof, as for instance overlooking the fact that seasonal effects might be different by day or night (although of course sunshine is involved, that was a temperature measurement question).

I’ve cited Herschel on this blog more than once. I still find his observations valuable. Modern farming practices have obscured the connection, but IMO it can’t be ruled out as an accidental coincidence.

The sunspot-climate pendulum may well swing back again. Only further evidence, probably available in coming decades, will decide. I can’t join you in categorically ruling that possibility out yet.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:21 pmLeif, the Layman sunspot count, counts sunspots the SAME WAY for both cycle 14 and cycle 24 ,(right or wrong) and that is what matters when making a comparisome.
Shows your ignorance. I am the expert on this. LSC throws away small spots [you call them ‘specks’], by Wolfer [who observed from 1877 to 1925, and thus during SC14] included them, apart from several other [more subtle] differences.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:25 pmLeif for each and every person you claim has changed there mind there are 10 more that have come on with their original thoughts. So that is meaningless.
I agree that your statement is quite meaningless [no surprise]

Under the assumption that Ferd’s point was climate related, the energy is material.

You are really twisting in order to make this claim. Fred Berple’s comment can stand on its own. It’s fairly clear that he was saying that certain outputs from the sun can have certain material effects even if those outputs have very little effect on TSI.

It’s fine for you to argue that changes in the sun’s output can’t have a material impact on climate, but don’t attempt to claim that he’s wrong by stating that changes other than TSI most certainly have demonstrable effects on the atmosphere.

The HF and sunspot variations being just proxies for the variations of solar output.

It seems as if you don’t understand the issues related to the actual atmospheric propagation of high frequency electromagnetic energy. Perhaps this is your disconnect.

If Ferd’s comment was just some OT throw-away, you are correct.

No, I am correct even though Fred Berple’s comments was not an OT comment.

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:24 pmoverlooking the fact that seasonal effects might be different by day or night (although of course sunshine is involved, that was a temperature measurement question).
huh?

The sunspot-climate pendulum may well swing back again. Only further evidence, probably available in coming decades, will decide. I can’t join you in categorically ruling that possibility out yet.
We cannot base policy on what might happen. My view is that we have to consider the evidence we have and that evidence doesn’t look good to me. But, as I have said, some people have a much lower bar in what they will accept and believe in.

As you know, he died in 2009, after ten more years of CACA-phoney. As a colleague, would know his opinion in the last decade of his life, but I’d appreciate learning how precisely his late conclusions came to differ from his prior.

wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:30 pmIt’s fine for you to argue that changes in the sun’s output can’t have a material impact on climate, but don’t attempt to claim that he’s wrong by stating that changes other than TSI most certainly have demonstrable effects on the atmosphere.
The upper atmosphere [ionosphere, thermosphere] is very much influenced by solar activity, but that has nothing to do with the climate in the troposphere, and hence Ferd’s comment was true but irrelevant and OT.

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:42 pmThe issue had to do with average winter T. There was another similar issue, which I can’t recall now, possibly having to do with the CET. But they’re beside the point.
I have no idea what you are referring to, but since, as you say’ “they are beside the point”, why did you bring it up?

The upper atmosphere [ionosphere, thermosphere] is very much influenced by solar activity, but that has nothing to do with the climate in the troposphere, and hence Ferd’s comment was true but irrelevant and OT.

Are you claiming that variations in TSI do influence climate in the troposphere?

Thanks for the links to your earlier involvement in the sun / Earth interaction but you did say this:

“The optimism we all had back then 40 years ago has since been doused by the failure of any and all of the avenues of research that we then thought promising to pan out.”

So let’s get more specific in light of more recent data and observations of climate behaviour. I tend to think that data pre 1900 is pretty unreliable as to timing so I prefer to look at the recent past with the benefit of modern sensors.

i) Do you or do you not accept that the global air circulation does seem to change in response to some aspect of solar variability?
The evidence for that during my lifetime looks good to me. We had more meridional jets during lowish cycle 20, more zonal jets during cycles 21 to 23 and more meridional jets during cycle 24. The MWP with an active sun saw more zonal jets, the LA with a less active sun saw more meridional jets. You have correctly pointed out the higher solar activity in the 1700s but that was a warmer period within the LIA which saw more zonal jets.

ii) Do you or do you not accept that stratosphere temperatures determine in part the height of the tropopause?
A warmer stratosphere pushes the tropopause down whereas a colder statosphere allows the tropopause to rise.

iii) Do you or do you not accept that tropopause height varies between equator and pole AND that any solar effects if present are likely to have a greater effect above the poles.
The importance of this is that any solar effects present would therefore affect tropopause height above the pole differently to that above the equator.

iv) Do you or do you not accept that the only way to get the jets and climate zones sliding poleward or equatorward, latitudinally would be to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.

v) Do you or do you not accept that sliding the jets and climate zones poleward or equatorward below the tropopause would affect global cloudiness and albedo and thus the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.

vi) Do you or do you not accept that latitudinal shifting of jets and climate zones would fundamentally affect the rate of energy flow from surface to space and therefore affect the global net energy budget.

Leif , until the solar parameters I have talked about are meant, and we see the climate reaction ,all your talk and insistence of a solar /climate connection is just SPECULATION on your part, because you don’t have the data.

So you can harp on this all you want , it ain’t going to change my mind or the minds of many who agree essentially with my stance, and there are many.
Absent the AGW fanatics most agree with my stance not yours when it comes to solar/climate relationships.

The upper atmosphere [ionosphere, thermosphere] is very much influenced by solar activity, but that has nothing to do with the climate in the troposphere, and hence Ferd’s comment was true but irrelevant
LEIF’S it has much to do with the troposphere.

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:39 pmAs a colleague, would know his opinion in the last decade of his life, but I’d appreciate learning how precisely his late conclusions came to differ from his prior.
At the time in 1974 it was thought that variations in TSI [Solar Energy Output] were as large as 1-2% [based on Abbot’s measurements http://www.leif.org/EOS/Abbot-Variation-Sun.pdf ]. Such variation translates into 1-2 degree temperature. We later learned that the variation is ten times smaller, and that translates into 0.1 degree, so not enough. Eddy struggled with that. In 2003 he chaired a NASA study http://www.leif.org/EOS/Eddy/2003NASA_living.pdf with a guarded and carefully worded conclusion “These qualified reconstructions of past changes in solar irradiance, which were based quite explicitly on assumed long-term changes that have yet to be observed, have been subsequently adopted in a growing number of climate models and climate attribution studies. They were also initially interpreted as evidence that much if not all of the global warming of the last 100 years could be attributed to natural as opposed to anthropogenic causes. Subsequent studies of Sun-like stars and of the documented behavior of
the Sun itself during an early 20th century minimum in solar activity have called the original interpretation of the stellar data into question. What seems more likely today is that the unusually inactive stars that were originally sampled were not the same but somewhat different from the Sun, rather than “solar analogs caught passing through a Maunder Minimum phase.” This revised interpretation obviously affects at least some of the conclusions drawn in climate model studies that utilized reconstructed values of solar irradiance. Further resolution of these uncertainties is obviously very important in Sun-Climate research.”
And he left it at that in the public document. In his last paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Eddy/2007SP_prairie.pdf he notes “To obtain a climatically signiﬁcant TSI decrease, Lean, Beer, and Bradley proposed the disappearance not only of the bright network structures associated with spicule foot points but even of the faintest inter-network magnetic elements located within supergranule cell centers. The historical eclipse observations [1706 and 1715] described here seem to require the presence of even the bright network structures, and thus of substantial solar photospheric magnetism during at least the last decade of the Maunder Minimum. Hence, the red-ﬂash observations would argue against a climatologically important decrease in TSI during that period of time.”
.

wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:47 pmAre you claiming that variations in TSI do influence climate in the troposphere?
Absolutely, to the tune of 0.1 degrees.

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:47 pmAs instances of your having been wrong or not considered the alternatives in areas outside your specialty. I could try to find them if you’d like, but not germane to this discussion.
Well, why did you bring it up then? But since I’m always willing to learn from my mistakes, please find whatever you can.

Stephen Wilde says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:57 pmi) Do you or do you not accept that the global air circulation does seem to change in response to some aspect of solar variability?
The important word is ‘seem’ and thus in the eye of the beholder, so I accept that you might seem to think so.

ii) Do you or do you not accept that stratosphere temperatures determine in part the height of the tropopause? A warmer stratosphere pushes the tropopause down whereas a colder stratosphere allows the tropopause to rise.
I think it is the mostly the other way around, the tropopause responds to the average temperature of the entire layer that lies underneath it, it is at its peak levels over the Equator, and reaches minimum heights over the poles. Again, there is an operative word ‘in part’, which when not numerically specified make the statement meaningless.

iii) Do you or do you not accept that tropopause height varies between equator and pole AND that any solar effects if present are likely to have a greater effect above the poles.
The poles see less of the Sun than elsewhere so the word ‘any solar’ are too vague to merit discussion.

iv) Do you or do you not accept that the only way to get the jets and climate zones sliding poleward or equatorward, latitudinally would be to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
It is the other way around: the gradient changes as a function of the climate.

v) Do you or do you not accept that sliding the jets and climate zones poleward or equatorward below the tropopause would affect global cloudiness and albedo and thus the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.
See above.

vi) Do you or do you not accept that latitudinal shifting of jets and climate zones would fundamentally affect the rate of energy flow from surface to space and therefore affect the global net energy budget.
You have cause and effect reversed.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:01 pmbecause you don’t have the data.
But you can speculate better because of the lack of date: less data = better speculation.

it ain’t going to change my mind or the minds of many who agree essentially with my stance, and there are many.
Once you have tasted the cool-aid you are lost. Your argument that ‘there are many’ is like saying it is healthy to smoke because ‘there are many’ who do it.

the AGW fanatics most agree with my stance
Yes, because it is important to them to have the Sun provide the variability before we began driving around in SUVs.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:09 pmIgnorance is bliss.
You should know.

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:20 pmThe subsequent (?) discovery of the degree of spectral variation in TSI & Svensmark’s laboratory experimentation might revive Dr. Eddy’s paradigm.
The general opinion at the moment is that the spectral variations are artifacts and not real.
Svensmark’s finding is not about climate, but about conversion of SO2 and H2O to H2SO4.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:31 pmEACH .1 % change in TSI equates to a temp. change of .1 to .2 c
Actually more like 0.07 c

wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:53 pmThen why did you claim that “TSI is where the energy is” as if that was any more relevant on the climate that other solar activity?
Because since it is where the energy, TSI dominates over other solar activity.

If both are equally irrelevant on climate,
TSI is very relevant as it causes a temperature wobble of ~0.1 degrees.

<i.And I think that you’re inflated ego prevents you from letting the issue go.
And that is why you keep responding instead of letting the issue go, right?

Because since it is where the energy, TSI dominates over other solar activity.

Not with respect to climate – which is what YOU claimed was the only relevant topic here.

TSI is very relevant as it causes a temperature wobble of ~0.1 degrees.

First, it’s amazing that you would definitively claim that ~0.1 (which is NOT the same as 0.1 – after all, 0 is approximately 0.1, too) is “very relevant…”

Second, it’s amazing that you are definitely claiming that no other types of solar output metrics are able to have an effect of ~0.1 degrees.

And that is why you keep responding instead of letting the issue go, right?

Not really. I didn’t approach this issue irresponsibly – you did. You were the one that commented without proper consideration. I’m merely exposing your oversized ego. It’s ok if you think that you’re doing the same with me, but that’s just silly.

wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 2:15 pmFirst, it’s amazing that you would definitively claim that ~0.1 (which is NOT the same as 0.1 – after all, 0 is approximately 0.1, too) is “very relevant…”
The expected variation is 0.07, which is ~0.1. The usual notion is to quote the significant digits, so ~0.1 is not the same a 0. It normally means a number between 0.05 and 0.15.

Second, it’s amazing that you are definitely claiming that no other types of solar output metrics are able to have an effect of ~0.1 degrees.
No larger solar cycle effect is observed.

Not really. I didn’t approach this issue irresponsibly – you did. You were the one that commented without proper consideration.
HF propagation varies with the solar cycle due to absorption of very shortwave solar radiation which does [not] penetrate to the lower atmosphere and is thus not imparting much energy to the climate system, and is therefore not germane.

“Sun-Weather-Climate is firmly within my field of expertise, as least so think [thought] my peers:
[…]
The optimism we all had back then 40 years ago has since been doused by the failure of any and all of the avenues of research that we then thought promising to pan out. The field that we revived has pretty much died again by now; a fate the field has suffered before and will suffer again:”

My peers call me one of the best long range weather forecasters in the world, so the field is much more alive than ever. I know Willis had a good look and found nothing, but I was interested if you had spent any time looking at heliocentric planetary cycles/configurations in relation to weather or climate at any scale?

Ulric Lyons says:
September 6, 2013 at 3:49 pmMy peers call me one of the best long range weather forecasters in the world
Who and how many are your peers?

I was interested if you had spent any time looking at heliocentric planetary cycles/configurations in relation to weather or climate at any scale?
I don’t think the planetary cycles control the weather [or my life, as a Taurus] directly, so the assumption would be that they do it via controlling solar activity. For that I can refer you to http://www.leif.org/EOS/aa21713-No-Planetary-Solar-Act.pdf that concludes: “There is no evidence for a planetary inﬂuence on solar activity” and I have recently looked at that myself: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf with a negative result.

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:40 pm
“The upper atmosphere [ionosphere, thermosphere] is very much influenced by solar activity, but that has nothing to do with the climate in the troposphere, and hence Ferd’s comment was true but irrelevant and OT.”

It’s clear from the SABER data that a substantial amount of the heating of the thermosphere is by the solar wind. Are we saying that the collective heat of this region of the atmosphere never reaches the troposphere or the surface? And surely Joule heating of the upper atmosphere would be stronger in the polar regions, and force strong circulation that can propagate down through the atmospheric levels?

Ulric Lyons says:
September 6, 2013 at 4:11 pmIt’s clear from the SABER data that a substantial amount of the heating of the thermosphere is by the solar wind. Are we saying that the collective heat of this region of the atmosphere never reaches the troposphere or the surface? And
The thermosphere is a trillion times thinner than the troposphere [density decreases 1000 times for each 50 km you ascend], so there is not much heat up there to reach down.

Yes, Svensmark’s findings aren’t yet about climate, but demonstrate the mechanism whereby GCRs could affect climate. It’s not unusual in the history of science for hypotheses thought shot down to be resurrected, either with different explanations or with a revival of the original suggestion.

The situation regarding possible solar influences on climate is now similar to observations of the fossil record before Darwin & of continental connections before sea floor spreading. There seems to be something there, but a plausible explanation is lacking. It may not exist in this case.

Will look for the instances I cited, but might take too long, being unable to search my messages or IIRC Tony’s in that thread with you.

Ulric Lyons says:
September 6, 2013 at 4:31 pmIt does have a large volume and a very high temperature. So what of strong polar circulation from Joule heating?
For each atom in the thermosphere there is more than 10 billion molecules in the stratosphere+troposphere, so even if the kinetic energy of each atom is 10 times that of the energy of a molecule in the S+T [corresponding to a temperature of more than 2000 degrees], if you could take all the atoms up there [or their energy] all the way down you have to distribute each atom’s excess energy to 10 billion molecules. Each of these will not get much, I reckon.

You mean you failed to find any, I see also that Wolf picked the wrong planetary combinations for the sunspot cycles.
I mean that there isn’t any that is convincing. Lots of kooky ones, though, but you would no consider those, would you?

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 4:35 pmIt’s not unusual in the history of science for hypotheses thought shot down to be resurrected, either with different explanations or with a revival of the original suggestion.
That is VERY unusual and only happens in the rarest of cases.

There seems to be something there, but a plausible explanation is lacking.
It is the other way around: you have an explanation for an effect that doesn’t seem to be there.

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 4:35 pm
It’s not unusual in the history of science for hypotheses thought shot down to be resurrected, either with different explanations or with a revival of the original suggestion.

Dr. S: That is VERY unusual and only happens in the rarest of cases.

M: Einstein’s “mistake” on an accelerating expanding universe comes to mind. Evo-devo is to some extent reviving not only Neo-Lamarckist thought, but Goethe’s concepts as well. Bloodletting is making a comeback for some indications. So unusual, yes, but not unknown.

M: There seems to be something there, but a plausible explanation is lacking.

Dr. S: It is the other way around: you have an explanation for an effect that doesn’t seem to be there.

M: I noted that before, when approached from a different angle. IMO the connection between solar activity or lack thereof & climate on Earth does seem to exist. If it hadn’t at one time appeared so to Dr. Eddy, he wouldn’t have been motivated to come up with the explanation that he did. It still seems to exist to many perfectly respectable scientists.

Here is one of the prior exchanges, regarding your having overlooked a possibility in a field outside your expertise, for which I was looking, the description of which I garbled (owing perhaps to early stage Alzheimer’s), so no surprise you didn’t recall it:

“lsvalgaard says:
May 26, 2013 at 11:46 am

Tree rings might be a proxy for moisture or growing season length rather than temperature directly.

Wouldn’t a warmer climate have a longer growing season?
——————————————————————————–

milodonharlani says:
May 26, 2013 at 11:44 am

One would think so, unless the greater warmth were concentrated in the winter, when most plants would be dormant, anyway, without materially affecting the other seasons.”

You might recall our exchange over whether a Swedish source used the wrong date for an event in Iceland. Maybe you still don’t think that it or yourself were in error, but IMO the source had to have confused two different events. That one would be fairly easy to find, should you wish your memory jogged.

The other instance I cited would be harder to find. My errors would be easier.

The “expected” variation???? Do you mean that there’s a range of probably variations? Does that mean that it’s statistically possible that TSI variation will not have any effect on temperature?

Because earlier in the thread you claimed that variation in TSI “Absolutely” effects climate “to the tune of 0.1 degrees.” Now you’re saying that 0.1 is only the “expected” effect?

HF propagation varies with the solar cycle due to absorption of very shortwave solar radiation which does [not] penetrate to the lower atmosphere and is thus not imparting much energy to the climate system, and is therefore not germane.

It’s hilarious that you keep repeating this claim despite the fact that nobody is arguing otherwise. Fred Berple’s point was that since it’s obvious that other solar output metrics affect HF propagation more than variations in TSI, then it’s possible that other solar output metrics could affect temperature. This is true. Just because you haven’t found the link yet, doesn’t mean that one definitively doesn’t exist. It certainly may, and someone smarter than you might find one despite your conclusion – so stop pretending that you’ve already solved all the mysteries.

Leif Svalgaard says:
“I mean that there isn’t any that is convincing. Lots of kooky ones, though, but you would no consider those, would you?”

One particular set of bodies is highly convincing at tracking cycle maxima dates, and plots exactly what happens through the weak cycles in late Maunder, Dalton, the 1880/90’s, and cycles 24 and 25, it is very hard to spot, though very simple in itself. I was on to the right bodies at least 5 years ago from orbital synodic harmonic analysis, but only spotted the correct pattern between them very recently. My approach is to not assume a mechanism, but let the successful correlations suggest what the mechanisms may be.

milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 5:03 pmSo unusual, yes, but not unknown.
Winning the lottery is not unknown, but very unusual for a given person.

If it hadn’t at one time appeared so to Dr. Eddy, he wouldn’t have been motivated to come up with the explanation that he did.
He was motivated by the erroneous measurements by Abbot [the errors were too large].

“Wouldn’t a warmer climate have a longer growing season?”
Was a question…One would think so, unless the greater warmth were concentrated in the winter
But for the cases [e.g. global temperature] where that is not the case…

You might recall our exchange over whether a Swedish source used the wrong date for an event in Iceland. Maybe you still don’t think that it or yourself were in error, but IMO the source had to have confused two different events.
Perhaps, but I don’t see that as a fault on my part that the source was confused. I personally have great respect for historical accounts and do not discount them lightly.

wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 5:22 pmThe “expected” variation???? Do you mean that there’s a range of probably variations?
No, from basic physics one can calculate how much temperature change you get [the ‘expected’ value] from a given change of radiation received.

Because earlier in the thread you claimed that variation in TSI “Absolutely” effects climate “to the tune of 0.1 degrees.” Now you’re saying that 0.1 is only the “expected” effect?
The 0.1 degrees is the effect calculated from physical laws and I do expect to get what physical laws predict.

Fred Berple’s point was that since it’s obvious that other solar output metrics affect HF propagation more than variations in TSI,
Variations in TSI as such do not affect HF propagation, so the point was moot.

so stop pretending that you’ve already solved all the mysteries.
I’m waiting for the solution to whatever mystery you might suggest. I can only go with what I know something about, but you seem to have no problem going farther than that,

Ulric Lyons says:
September 6, 2013 at 5:30 pmOne particular set of bodies is highly convincing at tracking cycle maxima dates, and plots exactly what happens through the weak cycles in late Maunder, Dalton
The use of the word ‘exactly’ here for times where our knowledge of the sunspot number is very uncertain is perhaps not appropriate.and cycles 24 and 25, it is very hard to spot
Especially for things that haven’t happened yet…

let the successful correlations suggest what the mechanisms may be
Remember that correlation is not causation.

Leif Svalgaard says:
Jeez Dr Svalgaard, you have a PhD…
“The thermosphere is a trillion times thinner than the troposphere [density decreases 1000 times for each 50 km you ascend], so there is not much heat up there to reach down.”
hate to sound like a putz, but how can something be a trillion times smaller than another quantity?
what you mean is “one trillionith the density”
once you get one time smaller than an original quanity, youre at zero.
dont mean to be a grammar freak, just sayin it cause its true.

hate to sound like a putz, but how can something be a trillion times smaller than another quantity?
what you mean is “one trillionith the density”

Strangely enough, this discussion has happened before on this site. Since it’s generally understood that “factor times greater than number” means number times factor, and “factor times smaller than number” means number divided by factor, it’s not an issue.

once you get one time smaller than an original quanity, youre at zero.

As if I would say “four times smaller” you’d know that meant times the inverse, that is multiplied by one divided by four, one time smaller would be times one divided by one, which is one, thus the result of one time smaller than an original quantity is the original quantity.

Now if you said zero times greater, then you’d be at zero.

But never say “zero times smaller” or somewhere a kitten’s head will explode. Why would you want to kill a kitten?

david eisenstadt says:
September 6, 2013 at 6:26 pm“The thermosphere is a trillion times thinner than the troposphere [density decreases 1000 times for each 50 km you ascend], so there is not much heat up there to reach down.”
hate to sound like a putz, but how can something be a trillion times smaller than another quantity?
what you mean is “one trillionith the density”

Ulric Lyons says:
September 6, 2013 at 6:30 pmIt’s along the lines of one repeating pattern getting interrupted for two out of every ten cycles.
The pattern of maxima was never ‘interrupted’, continuing the ‘pattern’ here http://sidc.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfaml.php with two weak cycles every 104 years gets you back to the strong cycles Galileo was observing. Now, since the data is so poor you might invent cycles to make things fit.

wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 7:40 pm“No, from basic physics one can calculate how much temperature change you get [the ‘expected’ value] from a given change of radiation received.”
So, just a model.
The Stefan-Boltzman law is no model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law but the way nature works. Now, there is actually nothing wrong with good models.

That WAS his point. That and the fact that other solar activity does affect HF propagation. One can’t claim that a point itself is the reason why a point is moot.
To mention HF and TSI in the same statement was the off-topic thing. You may benefit from the comment by
kadaka (KD Knoebel) September 4, 2013 at 10:15 pm

I wish you limited your claims to that which you know something about
You can learn from my comments.

david eisenstadt says:
September 6, 2013 at 6:26 pmhow can something be a trillion times smaller than another quantity?
What I have as change in the wallet right now is a trillion times smaller than the National Debt. So this can easily happen.

Although it has been touched on here by a few, one wonders on the magnitude of the interaction between GCR and the Earth’s biosphere and the possible effects on climate change.

An interesting view on the biosphere and glaciation may be found in articles written by John Hammaker in the 60’s and 70’s.
He was focused on soil health and how it related to periods of glaciation. In particular he regarded the biosphere as an immense generator of CO2 fueled by microbes dependent on an ever decreasing source of minerals during interglacial periods.

Although some of his theories have been definitely disproved (we are still alive), they also seem to forecast some of the current climate trends.

Dan Pangburn says:
September 6, 2013 at 8:05 pmcalculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with R2 = 0.9.
As we have discussed on WUWT before, your equation is a fake using circular arguments and invalid ‘physics’.

I note Leif’s responses to my queries and see where I think he goes wrong.

Leif considers that I have cause and effect the wrong way round so that the gradient of tropopause height (and the height itself) between equator and poles is a consequence of surface heating beneath the troposphere.

However the fact is that the presence of ozone above the tropopause results in a temperature inversion whereby temperature rises with height instead of falling.

The cause is a direct interaction between ozone and incoming solar radiation.

It is that which sets the height of the tropopause by placing a ‘lid’ on convective energy transfers up through the troposphere from the surface.

Any changes in the amount of ozone will result in a change in the height of the tropopause and / or a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.

We have observed changes in ozone quantities as a result of changes in the level of solar activity.

Therefore I do not believe that I have cause and effect the wrong way around as Leif thinks.

It is true that the temperature of the surface below the troposphere will influence tropopause heights and gradients but in my view that would only be a modulating effect dependent on the proportion of ToA insolation that gets through the atmosphere to heat the oceans.

The secret to the climate conundrum is therefore to realise that ozone is in control with surface heating being merely a modulating factor and the entire global air circulation is a result of the interaction between ozone heating and surface (or rather ocean) heating.

At all times that circulation is always adapting to the interplay between surface heating and ozone heating so as to maintain ToA energy balance.

The effect of our emissions being indiscernible compared to the effects of solar influences on ozone amounts and ocean oscillation influences on surface temperatures.

Our climate system is simply the region of interaction between top down solar and bottom up oceanic thermal effects within the atmosphere and the global air circulation changes as necessary to maintain balance for the system as a whole.

The visible manifestation of the process in action is the cyclical expansion and contraction of convective cells within the troposphere and the latitudinal shifting of those cells and the jet stream tracks that run between them.

Those changes are cyclical because the initial solar input which drives the entire system is cyclical though with many irregularities along the way. The solar effects are further modulated by the complexity of the oceanic response which is itself made more complex by the interaction between oscillations in every ocean basin.

However the fact is that the presence of ozone above the tropopause results in a temperature inversion whereby temperature rises with height instead of falling.

The cause is a direct interaction between ozone and incoming solar radiation.

It is that which sets the height of the tropopause by placing a ‘lid’ on convective energy transfers up through the troposphere from the surface.

As reported in 2010 here on WUWT, in the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009 the thermosphere collapsed, the height fell drastically. About 30% of that was tied to the decrease of Extreme Ultra-Violet (EUV), possibly 10% was from added atmospheric CO₂, with 60% attributed to “further research is required”.

You’re saying the tropospheric height varies with solar radiation, this is tied to ozone absorption of solar radiation, and ozone absorbs UV.

“To gauge how the stratosphere played a key role in the Arctic outbreak of 28 Dec 2008 . 11 Jan 2009 the geopotential heights through the depth of the atmosphere as well as the zonal-mean zonal wind anomalies in the mid-stratosphere were examined. The soundings from Anchorage were used to understand how stratosphere-troposphere coupling takes place during these Arctic outbreaks. Beginning around 30-31 December 2008, a notable change in the characteristic temperature pattern in the mid-troposphere through the stratosphere began to take place.These changes started to occur as geopotential heights in the atmosphere began to decrease,”

By the graphs there could be a 2008-2009 drop, looking at the peak months, but otherwise it looks like noise. Graphs saved, ASCII data downloaded for possible later analysis. (After that wait, might as well.)

Repeat, expanding to full period available, 9/2002 to 2/2013.

Nope, I’m not seeing it. There is certainly no dramatic drop as in the thermosphere. Perhaps you could tease out a statistically significant decrease, but it doesn’t look like much is there after you fiddle out the annual cycle variation.

As I had to search for the data you should have had to support your assertions, it is you who should crunch the data I found to locate a 2008-2009 tropopause height dip, if there is a valid one to be found there at all.

Given the dynamic nature of the tropopause I have doubts that the data is accurate enough to tease out height changes over and above the normal seasonal variation. After all, the solar influences that we are considering are usually spread across many decades.

Furthermore average height wouldn’t reveal changes in the gradient between equator and poles if the rise at one end is much the same as the fall at the other.

There is certainly no likelihood that any height changes will be anything like the scale observed in the thermosphere due to the huge density difference.

The record low solar activity occurred at much the same time as the record negative AO and the link I provided gives one local example of the regional reduction in heights that occurred towards the pole around that time.

How would you explain the changes in jet stream behaviour without a change in the gradient of tropopause heights between equator and poles?

Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2013 at 12:02 amAny changes in the amount of ozone will result in a change in the height of the tropopause and / or a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
We have observed changes in ozone quantities as a result of changes in the level of solar activity.
The temperature in the lower stratosphere [14-20 km altitude] should then show a solar cycle variation, but it does not: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Stratosphere-Trends-2012.pdf Figure 1

Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2013 at 6:53 amA single solar cycle is too small to make a difference. Multiple cycles over decades are necessary.
The data covers three cycles 1979-2012

That said, your figure 1 shows that the earlier decline in temperature stopped in the late 90s when the sun started to become less active towards the end of cycle 23.
The temperature has been flat since 1993 and shows no solar cycle variation since 1979. The decreases happened after volcanic eruptions [el Chichon 1982 and Pinatubo 1991]. No solar cycle effects at all.

Given the dynamic nature of the tropopause I have doubts that the data is accurate enough to tease out height changes over and above the normal seasonal variation. After all, the solar influences that we are considering are usually spread across many decades.

The thermosphere responded quite dramatically over a very short period. The thermosphere is “puffed out” by more-energetic solar UV, you’re arguing the troposphere is “plumped up” by less-energetic solar UV.

With a solar change great enough to make such a severe change to the thermosphere, it sure seems to logically follow that the troposphere should have at least notably noticed it.

Before I get into your trying to pull the “Look, a squirrel!” defense, and before I get a much-needed nap, I got a question suitable for your expertise.

The tropopause height data is global averages. As the entire globe is involved, why are you saying there is seasonal variation?

I too value the comments of experts & advocates in relevant fields. However Dr. Svalgaard & Mr. Mosher IMO overstate their case in asserting that there is no actual observational evidence from the real world that GCRs increase low tropospheric cloudiness & hence temperature. As I stated above, such evidence is abundant, however unconvincing they may find it.

[. . .]

– – – – – – – – –

milodonharlani,

Thanks for your comment. Always good to have one.

I did not respond initially to your comment addressed to me because I wanted to first give Leif & Mosher the opportunity to respond to me since I had addressed my comment to them. {Leif – thanks for your always prompt responses}

I love commentary that wanders into discussions about extraterrestrial phenomena and the possibilities of their effects on the Earth-Atmosphere System.

Not only is the content of the commentary valuable. The dynamics of the human interaction is valuable as well; you get to know the persons. It is extremely important to me to understand a person as well as his/her concepts. I also find it extremely valuable to meet commenters in person (physically face to face) because words on paper or in a blog can only convey so much about what a person is all about.

I have had the pleasure of meeting Leif. And I look forward to eventually meeting many of commenters engaging at this wonderful venue at WUWT. : )

Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2013 at 6:53 amA single solar cycle is too small to make a difference. Multiple cycles over decades are necessary.
Above 35 km, there is a solar cycle variation [as expected] on top of the volcanic spikes and the general decline since 1979. The decline has been linked to the cooling expected from increasing CO2

wobble says:
September 7, 2013 at 8:36 amYour model merely utilizes Stefan-Boltzman, a law. Your model is still a model.
1st of all, everything is a model. And there is nothing wrong with that. If you read the temperature off an old-fashioned mercury thermometer you are using a model that relates the length of the mercury string to temperature. 2nd, if you heat a piece of rock by radiation you will find that its temperature is related to the amount of heat you supply. The same with the Earth and with a steak sizzling on a BBQ.

No, it’s was completely germane. Stating that HF propagation is affected by solar output while seemingly unaffected by variations in TSI was completely appropriate for this thread.
Nonsense, as HF propagation is not climate. It is like saying that aurorae on Saturn are germane for the climate.

It would be easier to learn from your comments if you didn’t force me to question your credibility like you did with this HF propagation topic.
My credibility has nothing to do with your misconception of the relevance of the HF propagation.

Stephen, Leif does not understand you need a certain degree of magnitude change and duration of time in solar activity in order for it to translate to a cause and effect on the climatic system of earth.

He thinks any change on the sun should correlatee to a change to theclimatic system of earth,and if this does not happen the connection is not there. BIZARRE THINKING.

There is a clear inflection point in the late 90s when the decline flattens out and going by some of the data there is even a slight increase at some levels since then.

and

“Above 35 km, there is a solar cycle variation [as expected] on top of the volcanic spikes and the general decline since 1979. The decline has been linked to the cooling expected from increasing CO2”

There has been no general decline since the late 90s despite rapidly increasing human emissions of CO2. Furthermore for the period 2004 to 2007 at least (I await an update) there was an unexpected warming above 45km despite the less active sun. That suggests that the net thermal effect for both mesosphere and stratosphere from solar variations may be of the reverse sign from that expected, namely cooling for an active sun and warming for a quiet sun.Joanna Haigh commented to just that effect in relation to certain levels within the atmosphere.

kadaka said:

“The tropopause height data is global averages. As the entire globe is involved, why are you saying there is seasonal variation?”

There is seasonal variation in tropopause heights and therefore the gradient of tropopause height between equator and pole in each hemisphere.
I propose that there is a separate background change over decades from variations in solar activity.
There is no need for plumping up. The changes are subtle and long term. The graphs produced by Leif show the general trends such as cooling stratosphere pre about 1995 and flat or a slight warming afterwards to date.
Furthermore, the important feature need not be a general global increase in average heights but merely a change in the gradient of height between equator and poles.
Rather like a see-saw.

Two regions counted with the overall area decreasing. My feeling is that there is a change in the already weak SC24 output, the fire has gone out and we may be witnessing the start of a ever decreasing slope of solar activity heading towards the next solar minimum. The northern hemisphere has been the backbone of this cycle which has now expired, the southern hemisphere overall has been weak and unlikely to prop up or produce a second peak in SC24.

The chances of SC24 following the form of SC14 are now looking very slim…..

And you’re just using your model to predict the increased temperature of the earth or the increased temperature of the steak on a BBQ. Stop pretending that your prediction is a definitive outcome. I can model temperature increase inside a home from a new heat source, but the opposite could happen (temperature could decrease) if the heat source is located underneath the home thermostat and the air conditioning is running.

Nonsense, as HF propagation is not climate.

Oh please. A BBQ isn’t climate, yet you just thought it was important to use that as an demonstrative example. Discussing the effects the sun has is most certainly germane to climate discussions.

It is like saying that aurorae on Saturn are germane for the climate.

No, it’s not, and you know it.

Keep digging, Leif. It’s fun watching you twist yourself around after wading into something that you didn’t fully understand. I understand the issue perfectly.

Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2013 at 9:29 amThere is a clear inflection point in the late 90s when the decline flattens out and going by some of the data there is even a slight increase at some levels since then.
The data to look at is the bottom two plots that show the temperature just above the tropopause. There is no solar cycle variation and no gradual decline.

There has been no general decline since the late 90s despite rapidly increasing human emissions of CO2.
Contradicts you contention that with a less active Sun, the temperature should decrease.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 9:37 amAbove is from the Layman sunspot
The Layman Sunspot Count is junk, is misconceived, and is uncalibrated. It is purportedly an attempt to match Wolf’s count during solar cycle 5. Wolf was not even born during SC5. The current values we have for SC5 were constructed by Wolfer in 1902. Wolfer did not throw away specks.

The thermosphere is greatly influenced by solar activity(shrinks during low solar activity) , since the atmosphere is interconnected a change in one part of the atmosphere is going to effect all of the other parts.

As I said Leif the best way to evaluate sunspots should be by the area of the surface of the sun the sunspots cover. This is the most objective way to evalute the intensity or lack of intensity of sunspots.

Absent that, opinions as to which methold of counting sunspots is most accurate will vary, as is the case with me and you.

wobble says:
September 7, 2013 at 9:50 amAnd you’re just using your model to predict the increased temperature of the earth or the increased temperature of the steak on a BBQ.
I’m using the laws of physics to tell me how much the temperature increases when the radiation is cranked up. This works equally well for the Earth and for the Steak.

A BBQ isn’t climate, yet you just thought it was important to use that as an demonstrative example.
A BBQ illustrates the effect of increased heat radiation very well so is a good example for climate. HF does not, so is not a good example.

Keep digging, Leif. It’s fun watching you
I’m glad to provide entertainment for you. I hope that some of the education I provide will rub off too. We shall see how much longer you display your learning disability for all to see.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 9:54 amStephen is correct in that the stratosphere is not showing the cooling that was predicted by AGW theory.
The long-term trend above 35 km definitely is downwards. Stephen has been claiming for years that when the Sun becomes less active [as it has over that last 30 years] the stratosphere will cool. You are saying that Stephen is wrong on that?

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 9:58 amThe thermosphere is greatly influenced by solar activity(shrinks during low solar activity) , since the atmosphere is interconnected a change in one part of the atmosphere is going to effect all of the other parts.
No, since for every atom in the thermosphere there are 100 billion molecules in the troposphere. The tail does not wag the dog.

Stephen .I think you and I and others should be quite pleased as to what has been [taking] place with the climate in relationship to solar activity.

We saw a sure sign back around 2009-2011 that the quiet sun translated into a more meridional atmospheric [circulation], while [geological] activity was trending up.
Since the very weak maximum of solar cycle 24 those trends came to a halt if not a reverse, but this will be short lived, as the maximum of solar cycle 24 fades away.

Maybe solar flux will break a 100 in the next few days, and this is the maximum !!

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:01 amAs I said Leif the best way to evaluate sunspots should be by the area of the surface of the sun the sunspots cover. This is the most objective way to evalute the intensity or lack of intensity of sunspots.
And more than a hundred years of observation of both show that the sunspot number very closely match the sunspot areas, so either can be used.

opinions as to which methold of counting sunspots is most accurate will vary
Opinions are irrelevant, what matters is that the spots are counted the same way and that they agree with the sunspot areas [and with the F10.7 microwave flux]

“Stephen has been claiming for years that when the Sun becomes less active [as it has over that last 30 years] the stratosphere will cool. ”

Don’t know where you got that idea.

I have been clear all along that the stratosphere appears to cool with an active sun (less ozone) and warm with an inactive sun (more ozone).

The ozone response appears to be of opposite sign to that generally supposed. The 2004 – 2007 data relating to ozone changes above 45 km is supportive of that.

I expect we will find that the sign of the ozone response below 45 km is actually set by the response above 45 km after a period of lag time. The ozone available above 45 km determines how much ozone can accumulate below that level.

Such a proposition would also kill the CFC theory.

So far the quieter sun has merely put a stop to the earlier cooling from the more active sun.

Although the sun has been getting less active for 30 years it remained at a high level until the late 90s and so continued to cool the stratosphere until activity dropped dramatically at the end of cycle 23.

I don’t share Salvatore’s view about volcanic activity, by the way, but I appreciate his general support.

What I say and Stephen can chime in, is when the sun is quiet the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator in the stratopshere changes due to ozone distribution changes which will result in the polar areas of the stratosphere to warm more in contrast to lower latitudes of the stratosphere translating into a more meridional atmospheric circulation.

It does not matter per say if the stratosphere warms or cools, it is the temperature contrast.

As far as the thermosphere effect no effect,again thresholds have to be considered, you just for some reason do not understand THRESHOLDS, which says an x level of change will translate into an impact if the x levelis reached, if not reached no visible impact will be realized.

For some reasons the concept of thresholds is not part of your way of thinking.

Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:23 amDon’t know where you got that idea.
From statements like this:Although the sun has been getting less active for 30 years it remained at a high level until the late 90s and so continued to cool the stratosphere until activity dropped dramatically at the end of cycle 23.
remained high …so … continued to cool

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:30 amLeif when you have modern sunspot counts north of a 80 with a solar flux reading in the low 100′s something is out of wack.
Except that we don’t. For 2012 the sunspot number was 57.7 and the flux was 120.0, for 2013 the sunspot number to now has been 60.7 and the flux has been 118.2. Yesterday, the sunspot number was 32 and the flux was 103.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:34 amLeif if you have specks counted as sunspots the sunspot count will be high by today’s way of counting, but the area coverage will show a completly different picture.
Except it doesn’t. The relation between sunspot counts and sunspot area has been stable and constant since 1947. Here is the formula that converts area A to spots R: R = 0.39 A^0.732.

Most people that agree with STEPHEN in principal think a quieter sun will cause stratospheric cooling,(Stephen thinks the opposite, but same result) but that does not really matter, what matters is we all agree a quiet sun will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern, over time.

Due to a decrease in the temp. contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere versus lower latitudes of the stratosphere.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:37 amLook at all the time he spends responding, it is wonderful right or wrong.
Actually, not much time, as it is easy.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:40 amToday I see solar flux 101 sunspot count 41. I am going to watch this closely going forward
You are looking at the wrong sunspot number [NOAAs], and the numbers you quote were for yesterday. You should look at SIDCs http://sidc.be/products/meu/ where you will find SSN=28 for today.

Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:44 amA high level of activity cools and a low level warms.
A high level of activity can continue to cool whilst it falls until it goes below a specific threshold.
Which it did in the late 90s when the level of solar activity became low enough for the cooling of the stratosphere to stop. If the sun stays quiet for long enough then we should see stratospheric warming.
All woolly and inconsistent, I’ll stick with your statement that “Although the sun has been getting less active for 30 years it remained at a high level until the late 90s and so continued to cool the stratosphere”

In any event, Figure 1 shows no cooling or warming in the lower stratosphere since Pinatubo regardless of solar cycles and ozone, and that was the point: no temperature change just above the tropopause, so no solar effect via the stratosphere

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:54 amMost people that agree with STEPHEN in principal think a quieter sun will cause stratospheric cooling,(Stephen thinks the opposite, but same result)
Stephen even managed to confuse Sal.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:56 amthanks for the formula
You get a Figure too: http://www.leif.org/research/Relation-SSA-SSN-Since-1947.png
Several things to note:
1) almost perfect agreement, so the sunspot number is a VERY good proxy for the area covered. This is no news [has been known for about 70 years]
2) the only [small] disagreement is since 2001 where the sunspot number is a little bit too low [not too high as you think]. We think that is due to the Livingston & Penn effect that causes a deficit of small spots [‘specks’] which in turn, obviously, makes the sunspot number a bit to low. See http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Lefevre.pdf

So, I don’t want to hear any more about specks and the wrong conclusions you draw from your ignorance of the facts. This comment is a teaching moment for you. Grab it.

There is no perfect knowledge, the best we can hope for is the best current understanding.

Even when we have apparent perfection, we realize it is a defined perfection apart from reality. 1+1=2 perfectly, exactly. Does 1 sq meter of water plus 1 sq meter of solid salt yield exactly 2 sq meters of volume? Does 1 sq meter of 1°C water plus 1 sq meter of 99°C water yield 2 sq meters of water perfectly?

Thus we should automatically know, from car mechanics to financial advisors to scientists, anyone saying they understand an issue perfectly really shouldn’t be trusted as they’ve claimed the impossible, we should seek expertise elsewhere.

September 5, 2013 at 2:49 pm
1) is your position that if you were a peer reviewer of this (or perhaps his other published papers) then you would have strongly recommended to the journal editor against accepting it as is?
No, as the paper is only about converting H2O and SO2 to H2SO4
—
I’m thinking they’re missing the boat on this whole GCR/ACR .. thingy.
Our local interstellar cloud has varying densities for H, He, Ne, O etc etc..
Neutrals can be accelerated to ACR intensity levels. The underestimated ACR.
If a H neutral accelerated to CR intensity sprays the atmosphere it would not say have the same spray effect as a Ne neutral accelerated to CR intensity. Coincidently, alittle extra Ne shows up around the same time as the beginnings of the solar polar magnetic slow down and on Earth more noctilucent clouds are observed.

But the question for the day .. He and Ne how are they the same/different? What kind of ionization properties does Ne have? Luminosity? If there is more Ne in the solar halo now……….
Lots of good links left in this thread.
I did think Shaviv’s theory had holes..nearby supernova, winds rotational properties, neutrals, etc..

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:01 pm
because you don’t have the data.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
But you can speculate better because of the lack of date: less data = better speculation.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Now that is a classic reply/comment, and funny!

Perhaps Dr. S. is unaware that the equation does a credible job of calculating average global temperature trends all the way back to the beginning of the regular recording of sunspots in 1610. A graph that is qualitatively similar (different scale factor) is shown at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_23.html The downtrend of the Little Ice Age and uptrend that precipitated the AGW mistake are apparent. Anyone so-motivated can access the sunspot data and verify the equation themselves.

Once reasonably accurate world wide temperature measurements became available in approximately 1895, global temperature oscillations, above and below the trend calculated by the sunspot number time-integral, are observed. Since land does not mix, these oscillations must be caused by the net average of the several named and unnamed ocean oscillations. Incorporation of a simple approximation of net, overall average oscillations allows calculation of average global temperature anomalies with R2 = 0.9.

The equation provides a second means of verification using more recent measurements. The coefficients can be determined at any prior year using data up to that year and adjusting the coefficients to maximize R2. The equation, thus calibrated is then used to calculate the current trend of actual measurements. For example, using the equation for no CO2 effect (including CO2 effect has insignificant effect on R2), the prediction of the temperature anomaly trend in 2012 using the equation calibrated using data through 2005 (actual sunspot numbers through 2012) is 0.3888 K. When calibrated using data through 2012 the calculated value is 0.3967 K; a difference of only 0.008 K.

In the real world, it does not matter if your peers agree. In the real world it either works or not. Engineers do not argue with what works. The equation works.

The assessment that the equation is fake may actually reveal isolation from the real world.

A review of the relevance of the ‘CLOUD’ results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate

Anatoly Erlykin, Terry Sloan, Arnold Wolfendale
(Submitted on 23 Aug 2013)
The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ‘sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there will be a small global cooling, not warming.